Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Grey Squirrels

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research it is intended to undertake for the extermination of grey squirrels; what organisation will undertake this research; and at what estimated cost.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Proposals for intensifying research into methods of controlling grey squirrels are at present under examination by the agricultural departments and the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Remnant: That is only a partial answer to my Question. Does the Answer mean that where activities undertaken by my hon. Friend's Department have proved only partially successful, they must be abandoned? If so, why does not my hon. Friend, on that score, abandon his activities against foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Godber: I could not accept the wider implication in that supplementary question All I am saying is that we are seeking to find some other and more effective ways of dealing with squirrels, and I shall welcome my hon. Friend's support.

Mr. Remnant: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Runciman Committee (Report)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at the excessive profits of the middlemen handling vegetables, what action is being taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Runciman Committee in an effort to improve the situation for producers and consumers.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. John Hare): The hon. Member will be aware that in reply to recent Questions I have said that I am anxious to make a statement on the Runciman Report as soon as possible.

Mr. Dodds: I appreciate that, but will the Minister give some idea how soon that will be? Is not he more conversant with the date now than when he last answered a Question on this subject?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am rather more conversant with it than when I answered the previous Question, but I still cannot make a definite statement. A great deal of work is necessary to ensure that we get the widest measure of support from the public authorities as well as the trade organisations concerned. I am working hard on this.

Sir P. Agnew: If my right hon. Friend decides to set up a horticultural marketing council, will he take heed of the representations made on behalf of the growing and producing side of the industry, and ensure that those interests have representation equal in number to that of the distributive and other interests on the council?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has decided the composition of the Horticultural Advisory Council recommended by the Runciman Committee; and when he expects to announce the names of the members of the Council.

Mr. John Hare: No, Sir; as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk.


Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 6th March, I had hoped to be able to make a further statement on this subject this month, but consideration of this complicated matter is taking longer than I expected. I am as anxious as all hon. Members that the Government's decisions should be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Collins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a closer estimate of the time when he will be able to make an announcement? In addition, can he give an assurance that, when formed, the council will include representatives not only of consumers and trade unions but all organisations representing growers, wholesalers, retailers and importers?

Mr. Hare: I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member says. These points were covered in supplementary questions to a previous Answer. I cannot give him a date, but I shall try to make this announcement as soon as possible.

Bread

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the importance of bread to the health of the nation, what action the Government has taken and contemplates taking to ensure that the best possible product is supplied to the community.

Mr. John Hare: Flour, including flour used for bread making, must by regulation contain approved quantities of the nutrients vitamin By, nicotinic acid and iron. As the hon. Member is aware, the Food Standards Committee has been asked to advise as to whether there is any need for further regulations to govern the composition of bread as well as flour.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the Minister aware that, while all these chemicals are put in, most of the natural qualities are taken out? Is not it a fact that the quality of the bread supplied is steadily deteriorating? When may we expect from the Committee he mentioned something that will give people much more confidence that the bread is worth eating?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman really does exaggerate his own case. I cannot accept his suggestion that there is evidence of a deterioration in quality. There

is, in fact, a very wide variety of different kinds of bread now available. I cannot say when I shall receive the report from this Committee, but I know that it is making progress in its work.

Potatoes

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total quantity of potatoes imported since licences were granted in December, 1957, up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Godber: Up to 8th March, 1958, about 67,000 tons of maincrop potatoes had been imported under the licensing arrangements introduced in December last.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that information, may I ask him if he will explain the mystery to consumers? Is he aware that in November there was a shortage of potatoes and the prices were rocketing up? Why is it that there has been a need to import only such a small quantity of potatoes? Is not it a fact that the threat of imports had the effect of making some farmers bring their potatoes on to the market? If not, what is the reason?

Mr. Godber: As the hon. Gentleman intimates in his Question, the price has remained relatively stable, and I am sure that everybody is glad of that. The fact remains that there is a shortfall of potatoes this year generally. Certainly the imports have not been as large as in 1955, but that does not mean that we shall not need further supplies before the season is through.

Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements which the Government wisely made have been and are operating to the benefit of producers as well as consumers, and that we shall continue to have a decent supply of home-grown potatoes on the market to the end of the season?

Mr. Godber: I could not forecast exactly how it will work out to the end of the season, but I hope that my hon. Friend is right. I am quite certain that we were right to authorise these imports of potatoes at the time we did.

Attested Herds (Irish Store Cattle)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the progress being made with the attested herds scheme in Great Britain with the prospect that the whole country will be clear of bovine tuberculosis by 1961, what consultations he is having with the Irish authorities to ensure a supply of accredited Irish stock cattle that can be taken directly into attested herds in Great Britain.

Mr. John Hare: The authorities of the Irish Republic have throughout been kept informed of the progress of our attested herd scheme and they are well aware of the problems arising as the scheme approaches its final stage. Discussions are in progress with them about the future supply of store cattle, but I am not in a position to say more than this at the moment. I wish to assure my hon. Friend that I fully appreciate the importance of this matter.

Mr. Hurd: May we take it that my right hon. Friend is taking a personal interest in this problem, because he may well be faced with a position in which we may have an area clear of bovine tuberculosis here, and, although we still want Irish cattle, they cannot qualify to come in? Would not it be to the advantage of both countries if we could make mutually satisfactory arrangements as soon as possible?

Mr. Hare: I can assure my hon. Friend of my concern in this matter, and I am giving it my very close personal attention.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will enlist the co-operation of private enterprise concerns in foot-and-mouth disease research.

Mr. John Hare: Owing to the dangers of infection spreading from the handling of the virus and the unique facilities in the Research Institute at Pirbright, I am satisfied that Pirbright is the right place for research into this disease to be conducted. The Gowers Committee strongly supported this view.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have a look at this matter again? Is not it true to say that every effort, and as widespread an effort as possible, should be made to eliminate this scourge? Will he have some regard to the very considerable achievements made in similar fields to this by private industry? May I ask him if he will look at the matter again most carefully?

Mr. Hare: Of course, I always listen to anything that my hon. Friend says, and I should like to extend to him an invitation to go to Pirbright himself to see the work carried out there. I should be delighted to arrange facilities for that.

Colonel Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long the germ of foot-and-mouth disease can exist in the bone or bone marrow of infected South American cattle after they have recovered sufficiently to show no external symptom of the disease.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is advised that where cattle have recovered sufficiently from foot-and-mouth disease to show no external symptom, and have not been reinfected, the virus would not normally persist in the bone or bone marrow of their carcases.

Colonel Glyn: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his Answer. Will he look further into the matter? Does he agree that there have been cases of infection in this country due to infected bones? While I accept the view of the experts that the virus does not generally persist, may I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the issue?

Mr. Godber: We are always studying this very difficult problem. Its difficult feature is probably that one cannot rely on veterinary inspection to reveal that an animal is incubating the disease. That is probably the real cause of the trouble.

Mr. Royle: Is not it possible for the disease to be carried even in boneless meat?

Mr. Godber: Yes, that is perfectly true. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing up that point. It is true that boneless meat can carry it, but such meat is not usually left about in the same way that bones are.

Colonel Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether


he will consider imposing regulations to prevent the spreading of foot-and-mouth disease carried by wrapping material from carcases imported from South America.

Mr. Godber: Such regulations are already in force. The Statutory Instruments are the Importation of Meat (Wrapping Materials) Order, 1932, as amended by the Order of 1939, and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order, 1925, as amended by the Order of 1926.

Colonel Glyn: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer, but is he aware that recent outbreaks have been traced to these wrappings, and that they are in fact being made use of in country districts in circumstances which can spread the disease? Is it possible to tighten up the regulations?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing attention to these regulations. It is our desire to see that they are effectively administered. If he can give me any information in relation to a particular case, I shall be happy to follow it up.

Bacon Pigs

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the percentage during each of the last four years of bacon consumed in this country which came from home-produced pigs.

Mr. John Hare: The estimated percentages for the calendar years 1954 to 1957 are respectively 43, 43, 39 and 39.

Mr. Peyton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important to assure to home producers some proportion of the bacon market? Would not it be most unfortunate if pig producers were forced increasingly into the pork market, thereby giving a considerable benefit to our overseas competitors? Will he recognise that there is some point at which he must fix a minimum for the home industry?

Mr. Hare: I am not at all sure that I accept what my hon. Friend says. I would point out to him that, to take just the last few months, the average

return to bacon producers here was 41s. 7d. per score in January, and it is now 47s. 6d. per score.

Mr. Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 39 per cent. is a fair proportion of the home market for the home producer?

Mr. Hare: The housewife is very much the dictator in this matter, and I am quite certain that the British bacon industry can produce, in its highest quality bacon, the best bacon in the world. I am also certain that it will make every effort to increase the quality of the rest of the product of the industry.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has in relation to the present success, or otherwise, of specialist bacon pig producers in concentrating on continued improvement in type and quality; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: Since decontrol, Government policy has been directed by means of grading services and quality premiums towards improving the quality of bacon pig production and the evidence is that this policy has been, and is continuing to be, successful. In March, 1956, 32 per cent. of the pigs certified at bacon factories graded "A" at all measurement points, whereas at the end of 1957 the comparable figure was 45 per cent.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the changes made in the grading arrangements during the last two years and the progress made in improving quality.

Mr. Peyton: I appreciate the very difficult problem which my right hon. Friend is facing, but does he not agree that the ultimate success or failure of his efforts and the efforts of the industry to improve quality will depend upon confidence, and that there cannot be sufficient confidence without an assurance of a reasonable share in the home market?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend knows my views on the subject. A few days ago I gave a very long Answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) which set out my views.

Following is the table:


PIGS GRADED FOR QUALITY PREMIUM AT BACON FACTORIES IN UNITED KINGDOM


Week commencing (1)
Number of pigs certified at bacon factories (2)
Pigs qualifying for quality premium as percentage of column (2) (3)
Pigs which would have qualified for quality premium if no change had been made in criteria at March, 1957: as a percentage of column (2) (4)



'000 head




1956





26th March (a)
…
…
87·1
32·2



23rd April
…
…
86·1
33·7



21st May
…
…
81·1
32·4



18th June
…
…
75·7
33·7



16th July
…
…
77·3
32·7



13th August
…
…
77·7
34·9



10th September
…
…
84·6
36·4



8th October
…
…
88·1
37·2



5th November
…
…
85·7
37·8



3rd December
…
…
78·8
36·0



31st December
…
…
75·0
36·7



1957





28th January
…
…
74·8
36·7



25th February
…
…
82·9
36·4



25th March (b)
…
…
89·0
30·7
37·0


22nd April
…
…
78·2
32·8
38·4


20th May
…
…
79·8
32·9
38·5


17th June
…
…
71·7
33·7
38·6


15th July
…
…
79·7
32·4
37·1


12th August
…
…
82·7
34·1
38·3


9th September
…
…
95·5
35·5
40·5


7th October (c)
…
…
102·6
35·8
41·7


4th November
…
…
98·0
36·4
43·3


2nd December
…
…
86·4
37·5
44·8


23rd December
…
…
122·0
38·0
45·1


31st December
…
…


NOTES:


(a) Quality premiums payable on carcases graded "A" at loin, shoulder and mid-back within weight range 7 score to 8 score 15 lb.


(b) Quality premiums payable on carcases graded "A" at loin, shoulder and mid-back, having a minimum carcase length of 775 mm. and within weight range 7 score to 8 score 15 lb.


(c) Quality premiums payable on carcases graded "A" at loin and shoulder, having a minimum carcase length of 775 mm. and within weight range 7 score to 8 score 5 lb.

Milk Standards (Committee)

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the fact that a leading official of the Milk Marketing Board has publicly advocated a lowering of the presumptive legal standard for solids other than fat in milk; and, in view of this, if he will make a statement of his policy in this regard.

Mr. John Hare: The presumptive legal standards for milk were enacted over 50 years ago and their suitability in present-clay conditions has recently been questioned. My right hon. Friends the

Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Health and I have decided therefore to appoint a Committee to examine the problem both from the standpoint of human nutrition and of animal husbandry. It is hoped to announce the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee shortly.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer and assuring the House that the Question was in no way inspired, may I ask him if he would agree that the solid fat contents are as important as, if not more important than, butter fat, as they contain,


amongst other things, those salts so important for the health of the general public, and children in particular?

Mr. Hare: I think my hon. Friend will realise that that is exactly the sort of problem this Committee will have to study.

Mr. Champion: Is the Minister really satisfied that a further Committee is necessary? After all, was there not a Working Party on quality milk production which reported in 1953? Is it a fact that many of the recommendations of that Committee have not yet been carried out?

Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that there is a great deal of argument on all sides of this case, and I think that this Committee can do a useful job.

Farms (Landlord-Tenant System)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the proportion of farms in England and Wales farmed on the landlord-tenant system at the latest available date.

Mr. John Hare: The latest available information is that derived from the World Census of 1950. This showed that approximately 61 per cent. of the holdings of five acres and over in England and Wales were tenanted.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend fully convinced, after his experience as Minister of Agriculture for some months, that the system of landlord and tenant which we have perfected in this country really does work to the advantage of the agricultural industry as a whole?

Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir; I certainly agree with that. I think the House realises that, being both an owner and a farmer of land myself, I am not prejudiced when I say that there is little doubt that the sharing of responsibility in the landlord and tenant system has a great deal to commend it.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the new Agriculture Bill will tend to disturb this happy relationship between landlords and tenants?

Mr. Hare: I do not think so. I think that is very much up to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am told that it is to be discussed.

Hill Cattle

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the value of the recently discontinued hill cattle subsidy; and whether he will consider its reintroduction as an alternative to the hill cow subsidy from which many smaller farmers are unable to benefit.

Mr. John Hare: The hill cattle subsidy was introduced in wartime. It was discontinued because it had outlived its original purpose. While some farmers cannot qualify for the hill cow subsidy, upland farmers generally have been more than compensated by this for the loss of the hill cattle subsidy. In the general interest no further action is therefore thought necessary.

Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision? Whereas it is true that to pay a subsidy towards keeping breeding cattle on a hill farm is better, where that can be done, there are still some small hill farms unable to winter cattle. Would not this subsidy encourage cattle on some hill grazing where there is now none and be of monetary help in quarters where it is badly needed?

Mr. Hare: I have given the matter considerable thought, as I think my hon. Friend realises. I do not hold out much hope that I will change my mind, but I will certainly continue to consider the matter. I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates what we are now doing.

Mr. H. Hynd: As the Government are in principle opposed to subsidising private industry, will the Minister see that there is a limit to these subsidies?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member had better talk to his own leader on that subject.

Milk

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what directions he has given to the Milk Marketing Board with a view to ensuring that payment to producers of milk is made on a quality basis.

Mr. John Hare: The dairying industry is taking action to discourage the production of milk with a low butter-fat content.

Mr. Vane: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Milk Marketing Board is being inexcusably slow in making progress with this important matter and that the dairy industry would prefer more rapid progress? Since we are behind nearly every other civilised country in this regard, can my right hon. Friend give the Milk Marketing Board a push?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that the Milk Marketing Board will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said. He must realise that the producers of low-quality milk must be identified before they can be penalised, and that can be done only by testing milk over a period of months.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has in mind to ensure the more effective marketing of skimmed milk during the present year; and whether he will investigate the methods which have been adopted in the United States of America for establishing a flourishing market for slimming milk from which most of the cream has been removed.

Mr. Godber: The marketing of skimmed milk, whether as slimming milk for human consumption or in other ways, is of course the responsibility of the Milk Marketing Board and the manufacturers of milk products. I will, however, pass the hon. Member's inquiry on to the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Janner: Quite apart from the question of bolstering up the morale of the over-upholstered, will not the Minister himself do something about ensuring that the £1 million spent on advertising produces something effective in this regard? Is not he aware that it would in no way deceive the public if, instead of some of the products which are being imported to produce other commodities, we used the cream obtained from milk sold in this way?

Mr. Godber: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have an interest to declare on this subject, but the difficulty which he must face is that an increase in the sale of this type of milk would almost inevitably be reflected in the sales of full milk; so that this is not an easy problem. Two of the largest dairies in the country are already supplying slimming milk to those who need it.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase the consumption of full price fresh milk.

Mr. John Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board and the milk distributive trade, who are co-operating in the work of the National Milk Publicity Council to promote the sale of milk.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not so aware? What I am aware of is that the consumption of milk fell by over 20 million gallons last year, and that was disturbing. The fall in the consumption of the milk was due, in the main, to Government policy on prices. That is why a continuing responsibility lies upon them to take some steps to increase the consumption of milk.

Mr. Hare: I know that the hon. Member is far too knowledgeable on matters of agricultural policy not to know that responsibility in this matter lies with the Milk Marketing Board, and I shall certainly see that his comments reach it. As to the decrease in milk consumption which he has mentioned, figures are not always conclusive. In January of this year we sold over 1 million gallons more than in January of last year.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would not it help if prices were reduced so that people were able to buy more milk than they are now able to?

Mr. Hare: I am somewhat sensitive on the question of prices at the moment.

Sugar (Price)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the proposed increase in the price of sugar.

Mr. John Hare: Since last July the world market price of sugar has been below the prices guaranteed to Commonwealth sugar producers under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and to home producer's of beet sugar. In consequence it has become necessary to terminate the distribution payment by which the Sugar Board has passed on the profits made when the world price was high, and to introduce a surcharge to meet subsequent losses under the guarantees to home and


Commonwealth producers. This has been done by Orders made in accordance with the Sugar Act, 1956.

Mr. Jeger: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to state by how much the price of sugar to the housewife will be going up?

Mr. Hare: I gather that this matter is to be the subject of debate tonight and I am in some difficulty about answering the hon. Member.

Mr. Jeger: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is sheltering behind the fact that there are on the Order Paper references to Orders which are to be discussed tonight and is refusing to give us information at this moment, information which may be useful to us in the debate later today; or will he promise that in his speech later he will answer the question?

Mr. Hare: I have no intention of treating the House with discourtesy. I just thought that I was in some difficulty. The maximum amount which can be proposed is 1¾d.

Land Drainage (Heneage Report)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the implementation of the Heneage Report of 1951.

Mr. John Hare: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 6th March to the effect that I was not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any action on this matter? This Report was submitted in 1951. Since then, there have been repeated Questions about it from both sides of the House. Despite his newness to his present office, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave disquiet in the agricultural industry about the unnecessary delay in dealing with this very vital subject?

Mr. Hare: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the anxiety on both sides of the House about this matter. I can assure him that time is not being wasted. There is considerable discussion with parties whose agreement is essential to our making further progress.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had that sort of answer on a number of occasions from a number of Ministers of Agriculture? I do not want to bait my hon. Friend, because I am certain that he is doing everything he can, but is not he aware that there are many anomalies in land drainage in various parts of the country? Is he aware that we should be extremely grateful if we could be absolutely sure that he would do something fairly soon?

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not wanting to bait me. I will do my best in this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: Would not the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have served a better purpose if they had devoted themselves to devising a solution for the land drainage problem instead of producing an unnecessary Bill such as that which I understand is to be discussed next week?

Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat prejudiced.

Pigs (Marketing)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken under Section 23 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, about the marketing of pigs.

Mr. John Hare: The Pig Industry Development Authority was constituted on 1st October, 1957. It has not yet exercised any of those functions set out in the Third Schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1957, that have some bearing on the marketing of pigs.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that—as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware—his recent reply was not regarded as satisfactory amongst those to whom it was sent, would not it be a good idea to call in the advice and assistance of the Authority on this very difficult problem?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member knows, the Authority has only just been set up. It has an immense job to do, in progeny testing and other matters, and I think that it will be very fully employed on that work at the moment.

Farmers' Incomes

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the First


Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes with reference to farmers' incomes.

Mr. John Hare: Although the Report is clearly intended to apply to all sectors of the economy, it makes no recommendations concerning farmers' incomes. The factual material that it contains is, of course, available from other sources.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report points out that whereas under a Labour Government farmers' incomes rose, under a Conservative Government they have not risen? In view of this fact, does he realise the considerable interest in the Price Review announcement that he is about to make? Can he assure the House that this will be made before the Torrington polling day?

Mr. Hare: I cannot accept the implications in the hon. Member's supplementary question. Neither I nor any other Member of the Government is responsible for what was put into the Cohen Report.

Agricultural Workers (Unemployment)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the number of unemployed agricultural workers has increased; and what action he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. John Hare: At this time of the year seasonal unemployment in agriculture is at its height and the numbers include many who would normally find temporary employment in other industries. The local offices of the Ministry of Labour are doing all they can to place the workers concerned in such other suitable vacancies as are available.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the Minister aware that, quite apart from seasonal changes—which we all know about—according to the last available Monthly Digest of Statistics the number of unemployed rose from 13,100 in December, 1956, to 19,400 in December, 1957—a 50 per cent. increase? That has nothing to do with seasonal changes. What is he doing about it?

Mr. Hare: I think that I have answered the Question. It is largely due to these seasonal changes. I can assure the hon.

Gentleman that agriculture still has a need for skilled workers within its ranks. I am sure that that situation will continue.

Annual Price Review

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of the current Price Review.

Mr. John Hare: The Annual Review is still in progress, but I hope that it will be possible to make a statement and to present the customary White Paper in the near future.

Mr. Lipton: That Answer is as vague as the Government's policy in general. Can the Minister give an assurance on two points? Can he say, first, that this will not be an imposed settlement, but will be an agreed one and, secondly, that the Government Price Review will take into account the forthcoming rise in farm rents?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member knows quite well that while discussions are going on we cannot give assurances. Therefore, he has asked a supplementary question which could only amuse him, and he could not expect an answer from me.

Mr. T. Williams: Does not the Minister agree that the 1957 Act is supposed to have made a Price Review very easy?

Mr. Hare: I will say that the 1957 Act—as the right hon. Gentleman has so handsomely acknowledged—has given very considerable security to the farming industry.

Bacon Prices

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the recommended retail price for prime cuts of bacon has risen to 4s. 6d. per lb. whereas bacon prices to home producers are still unremunerative; and what steps he will take, by price control or otherwise, to ensure that low producer prices are reflected in reduced prices to the consumer.

Mr. John Hare: The price recommendation referred to is produced by a wholesale firm and is based on the current wholesale price of first quality Danish bacon, which increased from 306s. per cwt. to 317s. per cwt. last week. Recent improvements in wholesale prices of English bacon have been reflected in


higher prices for bacon pigs. I cannot agree that the average return on pigs sold to bacon factories, which last week was 47s. 6d. per score deadweight as compared with the standard price adjusted for feed of 46s. 9d., is low or unremunerative to producers.

Mr. Collins: As a farmer, surely the Minister is aware that bacon prices in the factories are so bad that the producers are just not selling bacon to the factories, and that they are working only to one-quarter or one-third of their capacity? Is not it fantastic that he should tell us that these retail prices are based upon the prices of Danish bacon when our own farmers are not getting remunerative prices? Will not he do something to end this situation, where our producers get bad prices but the housewives pay very high prices?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is not keeping in touch with the situation. If he had complained about the prices of bacon in January, when the average return to the bacon producer was 41s. 7d. per score, he might have made something of his point, but today it is 47s. 6d.

Sheep (Foot Rot)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to bring the official leaflet, "Foot Rot in Sheep," to the notice of flock owners, with a view to the early eradication of this disease.

Mr. Godber: The leaflet is one of a series on animal health published for my Department by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. My veterinary officers bring the leaflets to the notice of individual farmers when appropriate and they are displayed at the Ministry's bookstalls at agricultural shows. We have also asked the National Farmers' Union to draw the attention of their members to the leaflets.

Mr. G. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman convey one of these leaflets to the Government Chief Whip to help him to gather in his "flock"?

Mr. Godber: We may have trouble in our feet but hon. Gentlemen opposite have it in their heads.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that supplementary question was sufficiently agricultural.

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make foot rot in sheep a notifiable disease.

Mr. Godber: Measures to control this disease are well within the capacity of individual farmers, so my right hon. Friend does not propose to do this.

Mr. Champion: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a painful disease which is costly to flock owners? Will the Government take every step possible to eradicate this disease which is eradicable?

Mr. Godber: I agree, and if I thought that it would help we would do what the hon. Gentleman asks, but I do not think it is necessary in a case like this. I think this is a matter where explaining to those concerned is the best way to deal with it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any connection between foot rot in sheep and the Government's defeat last night.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is not it a fact that it is not the least bit of use making a disease a notifiable disease unless that course is effective, otherwise it is a confounded irritation to farmers?

Mr. Godber: I indicated that I did not think it was appropriate to do so in this case.

Hedgerow and Farm Timber (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to say when the Government will implement the recommendations of the Committee on Hedgerow and Farm Timber.

Mr. John Hare: The Committee reached the conclusion that more trees should be planted in hedgerows and on farms, to improve the supply of homegrown timber, to provide shade and shelter for stock, and to maintain the beauty of the countryside; and that encouragement to do so should be given to all those who own or manage land. Most of the recommendations do not call for legislative action.
The Government accept the general view of the Committee on these matters


and in particular the emphasis on voluntary action. We propose to take such steps as may be appropriate on the detailed recommendations. But we cannot accept the Committee's recommendation that, where his landlord disagrees, the tenant farmer should be given the statutory right to plant trees, subject to the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or myself. Nor do we consider it appropriate to introduce a new grant to encourage tree planting on farms. The Forestry Commission has, however, decided to reduce to one acre the minimum area on which it will pay a planting grant, and shelter belts are among the items which qualify for grant under the Farm Improvements Scheme.

Mr. Skeffington: May I thank the Minister for that Answer, which was promised by his predecessor in July of last year, and ask whether he is aware that, because there has been some delay in the decision of the Government, a good deal of hedge timber has been cleared, in fact a good deal of hedgerow has been lost as an amenity? Is the Minister aware that there is some danger to soil conservation, particularly in the Home Counties, because of this delay, and will he use every means at his disposal to see that these recommendations are carried out?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's Question and my reply will receive publicity. I will certainly consider every means of making the information known.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURE CONSERVANCY

Forestry Work

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is satisfied that in undertaking forestry work the Nature Conservancy is acting within its terms of reference and is not duplicating similar work already being carried out with public funds by the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: The Nature Conservancy does not in general undertake

forestry work. Such forestry activities as it undertakes are on a very small scale and are ancillary either to its researches into applied ecology or to the maintenance of certain natural or semi-natural areas to serve as living museums of flora and fauna. My noble Friend is satisfied that these activities are within the Conservancy's terms of reference and are not duplicating work already being carried out by the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nature Conservancy already owns 3,000 acres of unproductive woodlands, which are a shocking example to farmers and landowners throughout the country? Is he aware that many of us feel this research work could be carried out far more economically by the universities and the Forestry Commission? Would my hon. Friend look at all the forestry activities of the Nature Conservancy to see if in the present economic situation they can be properly managed?

Mr. Godber: I am aware that the acreage quoted by my hon. Friend is approximately correct, but he is a little hard on the Nature Conservancy. It consults closely the Forestry Commission in connection with some of these pieces of land.

Bird Vocalisations (Research)

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what practical benefits are to be expected from the expenditure by the Nature Conservancy of £2,720 for research into bird vocalisations.

Mr. Godber: The sum referred to by my hon. Friend was for a period of four years from 1st October, 1953. Research on bird vocalisations plays an important part in the general programme of fundamental research into animal behaviour. My noble Friend could not accept the implication that the value of such research is necessarily to be measured solely in terms of practical benefit, but he understands that in this case, in addition to its intrinsic value, it is hoped that the results will prove of practical advantage in the protection of crops against bird depredations by the use of mechanically recorded warning notes.

Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while none of us would deny that these researches may be of the greatest possible interest to many ornithologists throughout the countryside, they would be far better carried out by the zoology experts from the universities, and many of us feel that these activities have nothing to do with nature conservancy work throughout the country?

Mr. Remnant: The money would be better spent on killing grey squirrels.

Mr. Godber: I am sure that the universities carry on useful work. The work of the Nature Conservancy in this respect is helpful. After all, bird vocalisation is practised not only by birds, as one notices.

Catering Arrangements

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps he is taking to see that the Nature Conservancy does not make a further loss on its catering activities in the current year.

Mr. Godber: The Nature Conservancy's catering arrangements are confined to remote field stations where it is necessary to provide facilities. In the year ending 31st March, 1957, losses of £217 and £177 were made at two stations. The Nature Conservancy has hitherto been unable to find means of eliminating a loss on working at these remote field stations, but it is continuing efforts to this end and has invited the Treasury Chief Catering Adviser to help it.

Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is totally unnecessary that the Nature Conservancy should make a loss of £394 on its catering activities? Is he aware that if only Government Departments would look after the small hundreds like this, the thousands and even millions would take care of themselves?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I appreciate the last point. We always keep that before us. In this case, there are special difficulties, and I am advised that the scientific work might be imperilled if some provision were not made at these stations.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Farms (Sanitary Accommodation)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent investigation carried out by the Medical Department in Kenya to ascertain the reasons for the prevalence of cysticercosis in farm animals, and that in 64 farms which were visited 46 had no latrine accommodation for labourers employed, 12 had inadequate accommodation, and only six had satisfactory provision; and how he proposes to enforce the compulsory provision of sanitary accommodation under labour, or master and servant ordinances.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The Medical Department is at present engaged on a combined treatment and information campaign against the prevalence of tape-worm infection among farm labour. A feature of this effort is to encourage the more scrupulous use of the latrine accommodation provided under the law, and the health inspectorate in infected areas has recently been reinforced as a check that legal requirements are being met in the provision of accommodation.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister accept that the scrupulous use of sanitary accommodation is not easily enforced if there is no sanitary accommodation made available? Does not he agree that the facts in my Question seem very astonishing, and will he promise to do all he can to see that sanitary accommodation is made available on these farms, not only for the sake of the animals but particularly for the men?

Mr. Profumo: The increase in the health inspectorate will, as I said, make it easier to find those people who are not conforming with the law on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Freedom of Information (United Nations Resolution)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is proposed to apply to British Colonies the principles contained in the


resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of 11th December, 1957, relating to freedom of information.

Mr. Profumo: I am not sure what principles the hon. Member has in mind. The resolution deals principally with further action on a draft Convention on the Freedom of Information which was prepared in 1951 but not carried further.

Mr. Allaun: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the case I raised earlier of a man in Uganda at present serving a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for reading a newspaper called Forum which he did not know was on the banned list?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. I understand that a provisional memorandum of appeal to the High Court has been filed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA

Teachers

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the wages paid monthly to white and coloured teachers in the schools controlled by the Bermuda Government; what qualifications are required by teachers; and what facilities exist in Bermuda for coloured students to obtain the necessary qualifications to obtain equal financial status with white teachers.

Mr. Profumo: As the answer to the first part of the Question involves a number of figures I am with permission circulating them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The rates in the schools in question vary according to qualifications and length of experience but not according to colour. Teachers vary in qualifications from those without any professional training to those with university degrees and further post-graduate training.
The Board of Education instituted scholarships for the training of teachers in 1931. Thirteen such scholarships are now available annually and are, since there are no universities or teacher training institutions in Bermuda, tenable in Canada or the United Kingdom. Twenty-one white people and 137 coloured people have already been trained under this scheme.

Mr. Allaun: May I thank the Minister for that reply and ask whether he will encourage the payment of higher salaries for entrants into the teaching profession, since in many cases the salaries are lower than those for domestic workers?

Mr. Profumo: That is a wide question. The Question which the hon. Member put down was whether there was any differentiation between white and coloured, and I have answered that.

Following is the information:

Teachers' salaries in schools controlled by the Bermuda Government are paid on a scale approved by the Legislature with due regard to qualification and length of experience. These scales are as follows:


Head Teachers


Men
£1,010 to £1,510 per annum


Women
£950 to £1,450 per annum


according to the number of pupils in the school.

In addition £50 per annum is payable to a teacher in possession of an approved university degree; £75 per annum for a postgraduate teachers' diploma and £100 per annum for an honours degree or its equivalent. Subject to ten years or more satisfactory teaching service in Bermuda non-pensionable allowances are paid at the following rates:


10 years' service
…
£30


15 years Service
…
£45


20 years service
…
£60

Assistant Teachers

Salaries from £300 for non-certificated teachers to £1,032 per annum (men) and £972 per annum (women) are paid to teachers with an approved post-graduate teachers' diploma. Those holding an approved honours degree or its equivalent receive an additional £20 per annum. Non-pensionable allowances after ten or more years' satisfactory teaching service in Bermuda are paid as follows:


10 years' service
…
£18 to £27


15 years service
…
£27 to £40


20 years service
…
£36 to £54


depending upon qualifications held.

Both head and assistant teachers who are appointed from abroad for the first time, and are not, or do not become, domiciled in Bermuda are paid an expatriate allowance of £100 per annum diminishing annually over a period of five years after which none is payable.

Footnote

All salaries and allowances with the exception of the expatriate allowance are subject to a 15 per cent. bonus at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Pepel (Shipping Notice)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what authority Mr. R. Robertson, the port superintendent at Pepel, Sierra Leone, issued a written direction dated 18th January, 1958, governing the loading and unloading of ships in the port and governing the covering and uncovering of hatches of ships in port while under the command of their captains as masters.

Mr. Profumo: This notice was issued in accordance with the charter agreement to which the shipping line concerned is a party.

Mr. Hughes: But are the regulations drafted and administered in such a way as not to impair, or tend to impair, in any way the authority of a master in his own ship?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think this is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government.

Mr. Tilney: Would not my hon. Friend agree that all normal masters welcome the advice given by Mr. Robertson?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, I entirely agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Inter-Island Shipping Services

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Colonial Development Corporation and its commercial partners contributed to the West Indies inter-island shipping services provided by s.s. "West Indian".

Mr. Profumo: The Colonial Development Corporation and its partners formed the West Indies Navigation Company Limited—W.I.N.C.O.—with an issued share capital of £45,000. This company chartered the "West Indian" and operated the service. The C.D.C., in addition to providing one-third of the share capital, is under obligation to make loans to the company to meet certain specified outgoings; its contributions by loan, subject to final accounts, are expected to total some £155,000.

Mr. Royle: I am obliged for the figures and for that statement. Will the hon. Gentleman remember that on a previous occasion, in answer to a Question

by me, he paid a tribute to other organisations apart from the Colonial Development Corporation? When Parliament has established these organisations and companies, is it not a good thing that credit should be given to them for the work they are doing?

Mr. Profumo: I have no desire not to give credit where it is justified. I hope that the statement I have made today and on previous occasions will clear up the matter which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Child Mortality

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ask the Uganda Government to set up a committee to advise on measures to be taken to reduce child mortality in the protectorate.

Mr. Profumo: Committees on general and applied nutrition have been set up in the Protectorate. The general problem of child mortality is well understood and it is not considered that a special committee could do more than recommend such remedial measures as the Protectorate Government are already taking.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for child mortality in the Protectorate are quite appalling, and that four out of ten children die before reaching 15 years of age? Is he aware that something should be done urgently to deal with the problem of malnutrition and that special attention should be paid to this problem through the setting up of a special committee?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot agree. The position in Uganda does not stem from a lack of knowledge of the problem, but from ignorance, superstition, lack of hygiene and a backward economy in some areas which militates against the practical application of remedial measures.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Finance

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware that the restrictive financial policy of the Government in reducing the


assistance to Malta this year by £1,000,000 is depriving the island of resources to provide employment for the dockyard men who are becoming redundant; and. in order to prevent Malta from becoming a distressed area and a potential danger spot, if he will take steps to have this policy reversed;
(2) if he is aware that in 1955 the integration of Malta with Great Britain was almost an accomplished fact, and that the deteriorating position has been brought about by the refusal of the Government to allow the island to carry into its new financial year the balance of £500,000 which it was unable to spend during the period for which it was allocated: if he will take steps to have this financial position reviewed; and how far his recent talk with the Prime Minister of Malta has restored the former friendly relationship.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am unable to accept the premises in the hon. Member's Questions. I do not, however, consider it appropriate to deal with the hon. Member's detailed inquiries while I am having talks with the Prime Minister of Malta who is now in London.

Mr. Awbery: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have a moral obligation to the people of Malta and that we cannot walk out of it without creating in that island a distressed area? The policy that we are trying to adopt seems to lead us to something worse. Can he give an undertaking that he will report on his interview with Mr. Mintoff as soon as possible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, I will do that. I am aware that we have obligations to Malta and that Malta has obligations to us.

Mr. Creech Jones: Because of public perplexity about statements appearing in the newspapers, would the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the real obstacles that prevent a satisfactory conclusion of these negotiations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certain that there would be no satisfactory solution by Question and Answer in the House at this time if I turned private into public talks.

Mr. Awbery: Is not it a fact that procrastination has been the cause of the trouble? Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up with a decision on this problem?

Investment

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the unsettled state of the island of Malta is discouraging industrialists from regarding it as a potential field of investment which would create a viable economy on the island as the use of the dockyard diminishes; and what steps are being taken to reassure them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I am very concerned at recent events in Malta, particularly the Assembly Resolution of 30th December, 1957, which have caused disquiet among potential investors. The responsibility for encouraging industrialists to Malta must of course lie primarily with the Government of Malta, but it is one of the matters which I am now pursuing with the Prime Minister of Malta.

Mr. Awbery: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the alteration of the naval dockyard into a repair dockyard to accommodate the tankers going through to the Mediterranean Sea to the oil bases? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to consider doing this himself, would he encourage private enterprise to do it by making some kind of grant?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly welcome that observation in the House. That is exactly what is happening.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In order to end the unsettlement, which is partly due to the fact that it is now two years since this House approved the project for a settlement, is there a prospect that this matter will be carried to a successful conclusion by the talks that the right hon. Gentleman is having now with the Maltese Prime Minister?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very keen on expedition.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT ACT, 1957

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from hon. Members relating


to the hardships which will result if there is no amendment of the Rent Act; and what assurances he has given to those who made them.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister how many representations he has received from hon. Members relating to evictions under the Rent Act 1957.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As I said last Thursday, I would prefer to keep the tradition, which I think the right one, of not discussing in public private communications which I receive from both sides of the House.

Mr. Prentice: While we are glad to see the Prime Minister in the House today, may I ask him whether he will acknowledge that this is the third time in less than a fortnight that he has evaded a direct reply—he and the Lord Privy Seal—to Questions on this point? Surely when a large number of his supporters have made representations to him on a matter of great public importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—was it not rather a poor excuse to suggest that this was purely private correspondence?

The Prime Minister: It is very important to preserve the tradition that communications of this kind from the other side of the House shall be regarded as private, because they are a very valuable part of our procedure. I doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition would like to make a statement on representations, let us say on the question of defence, that he may have received.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, however much he tries to ignore or minimise hostility to the Rent Act, the public conscience will not tolerate the spectacle next October of British refugees made homeless in their native land? Even if it means cracking the stony heart of the Minister of Housing beforehand, the public just will not tolerate that.

The Prime Minister: That is a speech which the hon. Gentleman should have made, and perhaps did make, in the debate that we had on Monday, 3rd March.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the public representations made by one of

his hon. Friends that this country would not forgive a Government that put people out of their homes?

The Prime Minister: All sorts of statements are made and I pay the greatest regard to them.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Housing himself has expressed anxiety about the possible hardships resulting from this Act and given a warning to landlords that if they do not behave properly the Government will bring in fresh legislation? May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will make up their mind on this point, and whether he will give us an assurance that the matter will be considered urgently, with a view to legislation in the present Session?

The Prime Minister: All that matter was fully discussed only a few days ago. I have nothing to add to it. On reflection, I am sure that what I have said will be of benefit to both sides. Private communications should be possible without their being revealed in public.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is not it a fact that those who write to Prime Ministers from time to time, from whatever party they may come, would deplore any departure on the part of my right hon. Friend from the normal practice?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (STERLING HOLDINGS)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, in the course of his Commonwealth tour, he discussed the sterling balances; and what understandings he achieved as to withdrawals from them.

The Prime Minister: The sterling holdings of Commonwealth countries were not one of the principal topics of discussion during my Commonwealth tour. The holdings are, of course, and will continue to be freely at the disposal of their owners.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that unco-ordinated withdrawal of sterling balances is one of the chief sources of our financial difficulty, and that the situation is likely to deteriorate as additional countries achieve independence, may I


ask whether the Prime Minister does not regard his reply as vague and unsatisfactory?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would like to make it clear that in this sense we are a banker, and people who have balances expect to have the right to draw on their balances as and when they require to do so. At the same time, Commonwealth countries are aware of the need to keep sterling strong. There is close consultation among us all on this matter. It should be borne in mind that by no means all the sterling assets are composed of short-term assets. A large part is represented by statutory backing for currencies or the assets of special official funds such as sinking funds, savings banks and pension funds, as well as price stabilisation and marketing board funds.

Mr. Gaitskell: While agreeing that owners of sterling balances are free to withdraw them, may I ask the Prime Minister to say whether the general question of the operation of the sterling area will be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Economic Conference?

The Prime Minister: I feel sure that it will.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUSSEX COAST (HELICOPTER RESCUE SERVICE)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the coming closing down of the Royal Naval Air Station at Ford, and of the Royal Air Force Station, Tangmere, ceasing to be operational, he will discuss with his fellow Ministers what can be done to maintain a helicopter service for sea rescue along the Sussex coast where this service has now proved to be far faster and more efficient than lifeboats.

The Prime Minister: Although Royal Naval and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters give civil rescue organisations whatever help they can, their primary rôle is the rescue of aircrew, and this must be the governing factor in deciding their deployment.
There are no Royal Air Force helicopters at Tangmere, but there is a helicopter unit at Thorney Island which it is not at present intended to move.

Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bear in mind that this is a comparatively new service which has, so far as we can see on the Sussex coast, given tremendous help to the lifeboat service? If anything can be done to develop it and to link it up with other ports on the coast, will my right hon. Friend use all his influence in that direction?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I will do everything I can to help, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the primary purpose of the Service is rescue of aircrew. There are considerable limitations on the help that helicopters can give. They cannot at present operate in darkness or fog, and in strong winds their capacity is somewhat limited. However, the area now covered by Ford will be reasonably well covered by the Royal Air Force helicopters at Thorney Island, which is only 16 miles away.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH MARCH—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Report.
Consideration of Civil Supplementary Estimates.
Class III, Vote 1, Home Office. Vote 6, Fire Services, England and Wales.
Class V, Vote 5, National Health Service, England and Wales. Vote 11, National Health Service, Scotland.
Class II, Vote 2, Foreign Office Grants and Services.
At 9.30 p.m., under the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, the Question under discussion and on all outstanding Votes required before 31st March will be put from the Chair.
Committee and remaining stages of the Nationalised Industries Loans Bill.
TUESDAY, 18TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH MARCH—At the request of the Opposition the Second


Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken formally, and we shall then resume and conclude the Second Reading debate on the Agriculture Bill and also take the Committee stage of the necessary Ways and Means Resolution.
THURSDAY, 20TH MARCH—At the request of the Opposition it is proposed to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally and debate will then take place on an Opposition Motion relating to Education.
FRIDAY, 21ST MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Gaitskell: When does the Leader of the House expect to try to make further progress on the Maintenance Orders Bill?

Mr. Butler: I think that we shall have no difficulty in making progress with the rest of that Bill in the week after next. I think that a little patience will be a good thing.

Dame Irene Ward: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to several Motions in my name dealing with the subject of the subsidising of opera?

[That this House is of opinion that efforts in conjunction with the Sadlers Wells Trust to plan a tour for the British isles on the basis of an adequate and economic spread of opera was torpedoed by Covent Garden, whose general administrative director, though equally dependent on public money, refused cooperation and seriously embarrassed the proper presentation of opera in the Provinces by his piracy of artists; that the presentation of the Covent Garden Accounts, which provides no separate balance sheets for opera and ballet, prevents the general public from knowing the losses on opera and assessing the public money spent on the three opera companies and the fairness of the subsidies given; that too much power is in the hands of the general administrative director and that the Covent Garden Trust, by failing to reappoint a musical director has substantially increased his power causing dismay to the artistic world; and that there are many undesirable features in the conduct of affairs at Covent Garden which no one appears to have authority to check, least of all the Arts Council.]

[That this House is of opinion that the merger suggested by the Arts Council of the Carl Rosa and Sadlers Wells Opera Companies has reinforced the growing opinion that no effective control of affairs free from patronage exists; that the methods to force the amalgamation by financial sanctions are not fairly designed; that the shock tactics have angered and disturbed public opinion; and that a rationalisation of opera subsidies designed to preserve a fair balance between London and the Provinces, provide high standards and protection for those employed in the opera world and an attraction to foreign visitors cannot be enforced without a penetrating investigation into Covent Garden administration as well as Sadlers Wells and Carl Rosa.]

[That, in the opinion of this House, although it is possible that unfair emphasis may have been laid on some aspects of subsidising opera, this is due to the complete inability of any individual to ascertain the true facts; that the methods of subsidising opera no longer commend themselves to a large and interested public; that patronage tends to increase power to the few to the detriment of the many; and that if public confidence is to be restored action and probing from which no one is exempt is essential.]

In view of the many difficulties that have arisen and the general interest of the public in the whole future of opera, when will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important matter?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that we can find Government time for that, but no doubt it will be possible in private Members' time.

Mr. Houghton: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the additional and influential support given to the Motion on Unestablished Service to Reckon for Pension in the Civil Service?

[That this House takes note of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (Command Paper No. 9613) and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, that it is in fact


now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, that Parliament conceded that as regards service after July, 1949, by the Superannuation Act, 1949, that the Royal Commission were of opinion that the Superannuation Act, 1946, afforded a precedent for retrospection and supported the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration was that of cost; and this House is of opinion that all unestablished service prior to July, 1949, of civil servants subsequently appointed to established posts should be reckonable in full for superannuation purposes (instead of one-half only) on the grounds put forward by the Right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Monmouth, in his speech to Standing Committee B on the Superannuation Bill, 1949 (HANSARD, 10th May, 1949, Cols. 155–158), and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary action.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the reputation for political consistency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is heavily involved in this matter? Will he provide time for a short debate on this subject, or, alternatively, commence discussions for a solution of the problem?

Mr. Butler: I cannot promise an early day for a debate. I have the Motion before me, with the signatures supporting it. If the hon. Member so desires, I will see my right hon. Friends principally concerned, but at the moment I can give no further assurance than that.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the large majority in the House and the large measure of support in the countryside for the Compensation (Acquisition and Planning) Bill, will my right hon. Friend provide a Money Resolution for the Bill in the near future?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the intense interest taken in this subject and the degree of support for the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend. This is a matter which will require a great deal more consideration, in view of its complexity. I shall undertake to keep in touch with my hon. Friend and his. friends, but I cannot make any further promise now.

Mr. Short: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to an all-party Motion, signed by most hon. Members from the north-east area, regarding the descheduling of the North-Eastern Development Area and the alarm which statements made by the President of the Board of Trade have caused in the North-East?

[That, in the opinion of this House, to deschedule the whole or part of the North-East Development Area would be prejudicial to the continuing diversification of industry in that area; and that so long as a large proportion of the working population are employed in a small number of basic industries, employment in the area will remain dangerously vulnerable.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for that Motion to be debated in the House?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. This forms part of the general problem of dealing with Development Areas and any incidence of unemployment there may be. I have the Motion before me, but I cannot give any time to discuss it specifically. I will, however, discuss the matter with my hon. Friends concerned.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before any decision is taken on this question, will this House have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. Butler: This is, of course, a matter upon which the House should give an opinion. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities for discussing this major subject in all its important aspects.

Dr. D. Johnson: In the light of his statement a week ago to the National Association for Mental Health, will my right hon. Friend provide a day during the present Session to debate future legislation in respect of mental health?

Mr. Butler: We had a general debate on this subject which gave the Government an opportunity of realising the great interest there is on this matter on all sides of the House. Except for private Members' and Opposition time, it would be very difficult to find another day on which to discuss the general issues. I gave an indication, in the speech to which my hon. Friend has referred, that we hope to legislate on this subject. If that is realised, there will be ample opportunity of discussion.

Mr. W. R. Williams: With reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in view of the fact that the Leader of the House has been in touch with my hon. Friend on this matter for at least six or eight weeks, is there a possibility of those conversations developing into something rather substantial?

Mr. Butler: The mills grind very slowly, but in the end they produce some results.

Mr. Hayman: When considering Development Areas, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the very serious unemployment position in Devon and Cornwall, as revealed in today's issue of the Western Morning News?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, but I must learn from previous experience that in answering questions on business I must not go too far on questions of policy.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anxiety in the North-East about the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on the descheduling of the North-East Development Area? Does he not think that a debate in the House might allay those fears?

Mr. Butler: I do not doubt that there will be opportunities from time to time, either through the initiative of the Government, of the Opposition, or private Members individually, to discuss all these matters and, in particular, the anxieties of the North-East Coast. I will bear the matter in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1958–59 AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1958–59; AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59 AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–58; CIVIL (EXCESS), 1956–57 AND NAVY (EXCESSES), 1956–57

CIVIL

CLASS III VOTE 1. HOME OFFICE

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,359,875, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March., 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Hajesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices; grants towards the expenses of the probation of offenders, of magistrates' courts and of school crossing patrols; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.

VOTE 6. FIRE SERVICES, ENGLAND AND WALES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £168,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenses in connection with the fire services in England and Wales, including the cost of inspection and training, and grants in respect of expenditure incurred by fire authorities; for certain superannuation and other expenses; and for remanet expediture in connection with the National Fire Service, England and Wales.

CLASS V

VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,428,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course


of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, &amp;c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including a grant in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &amp;c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 11. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,561,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &amp;c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &amp;c., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £553,310, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

NAVY ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £68,167,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: There are one or two questions that we should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on Vote 1. If he refers to page 14 of the Estimates and devotes his attention to the pay of the Women's Royal Naval Service, he might be able to answer this question. We

see from the figures that while the number of officers has been falling, the number of ratings has increased. This appears to be different from what has happened in the Admiralty in the past, when, generally, the number of officers has increased in proportion to the number of ratings. It may be, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said during our discussion last week on Vote A, that there is a higher marriage rate among the officers of the W.R.N.S. As the hon. Gentleman has particular and personal information, perhaps he can give up an explanation.
I should like to ask one or two questions about National Service grants. Under the Vote, provision is made under the National Service Acts, 1948 and 1950, to assist personnel who find themselves in difficulty in not being able to meet their commitments. Special hardship allowances are made to enable personnel to overcome financial problems. We are not told how much is included in the sum asked for in the Vote and we wonder how much is involved. We would also like to know whether the Government have considered the increase in the cost of living over the past few years under their inefficient administration and whether this has been taken into account. If the amounts which have been given are higher than in the past, what is the proportion of the increase? How is this arrangement working?
My next question refers to the closing down of the Nore Command. During our discussion of Vote A, we devoted considerable time to what would happen to the civilian personnel, but I regret that we did not have the opportunity to say something about the Service personnel who would be affected by the closing of the Command. These men have been stationed in Chatham and district for a considerable time. They have their homes and their families there. The closing down of the Command has created fear and anxiety about their future and the future of their families.
Various problems arise. First, there is the education of the children, and secondly, the fact that these men will probably be transferred to another base. In such an event, what will happen to their families? Will they be allowed to remain in the Admiralty houses at Chatham? If so, what provision will be made for the Service personnel to


visit their families? I visualise that some of the men might be transferred to Rosyth. At the moment, living as they do with their families at the base, no difficulty arises when they have leave or time off, but if they are transferred to a station elsewhere, will any added facilities be given to them to visit their families? Will they be issued with warrants for the purpose?
Another problem which arises if the men are transferred elsewhere is whether their families will be given the opportunity to get accommodation locally. Will special provision be made for this? Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what the Department has in mind for the Service personnel at Chatham, so that he may alleviate any fears or anxieties that the men may have because of the closing down of the Nore Command?
One other point on Vote 1 arises on miscellaneous allowances. Page 19 states:
Provision is made for awards to officers qualifying at the Civil Service Commission examinations for interpreters. The amounts of these awards vary from £30 for French to £180 for Chinese and Japanese
I do not know how many officers have already qualified for the maximum amount. It might be interesting to know how many of them are taking the opportunity to become qualified in these languages. Why are the awards limited to officers? This would be a useful provision for ratings, also. With the higher educational standards in schools today and the additional opportunities that are available, surely this scheme might be extended to enable ratings as well as officers to qualify for these awards. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this when he replies.
My only other point on Vote 1 concerns appropriations in aid and the item "Purchases of Discharge". I see that the Admiralty is expecting to receive exactly twice the amount it received last year for this item, and I should like to know the reason for its expectation. Is it that it is rather pessimistic about recruiting, rather pessimistic about the provisions that have been made about it, and rather pessimistic about keeping its recruits? Those are the points that I wanted to raise on Vote 1, but no doubt some of my hon. Friends will have other matters to mention.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates, Birmingham: Perhaps on this Vote I might raise a matter that I put to the House when we were discussing personnel. I then mentioned the case of a 16-year-old boy who wanted to be released from the Navy, and whose application had been turned down. The First Lord was good enough to make inquiries. Today, I have received a letter from him, but I very much regret that the statement in that letter is not in accordance with the facts, and that I cannot accept his communication as a satisfactory explanation. If we are to be asked for a sum of money to pay for salaries in the Navy, I think that we should first be satisfied that they are being paid to those who want to be in the Navy, and that if a reasonable case for release is put forward it should be reasonably and carefully considered.
I ask the Minister again to consider this case. If a boy aged 16, with the consent of his parents, joins the Navy and then later finds that he has made a mistake, and his parents feel the same way, it is reasonable that his case should be most carefully considered. As I said the other night, this boy, after joining, realised that his mother was ill, but the First Lord, in communications that I have received from him, has not made any reference whatsoever to the health of the mother.
Since I spoke about this in the House, I have seen the boy's mother, and it is true that her health is unsatisfactory. She knows that her son wants to be at home. That knowledge is no help to her, and it cannot be satisfactory for the boy. As I have previously stated, this boy came to see me after he had met his officers and his captain. He came to see me in Birmingham, and the Minister's decision was made before I saw the boy. I have had two letters from him saying that he did not want to remain in the Navy, and I have had his verbal statement. He tells me that since he returned to the Service he has not been questioned. Therefore, if the First Lord says that this boy now wants to remain in the Navy, he is under a complete misapprehension.
What is the alternative? If the Minister will not accede to my plea, I can only say that there is in Vote I a heading, "Appropriations in Aid". Obviously, this boy will be forced to try


to buy himself out. Worse still, he has already said, in a letter that I have seen, that he is making an allowance of 10s. a week to his widowed mother, and, of course, although it will be extremely difficult for her, she will try to put that money away until she has sufficient to buy him out of the Service.
That is unfair and unjust. This is not a case of a boy realising his mistake at once, but over and after a number of months. It is only a little over a fortnight since he made his last statement to me, and I cannot accept the letter I have today received in which the Admiralty refers to an interview that the boy's commanding officer had with him last month. The commanding officer says that:
He said he was not happy, not because of an inherent dislike of naval life, but because he was away from home; he worried about his mother, and his mother worried about him. I told him that having received the welfare report there was insufficient grounds for me to recommend a compassionate discharge. I therefore advised him that if he was to stay in the Navy, then the best way he could help his family was to do as well as he could, and not to exaggerate his difficulties here, and thus cause his mother needless anxiety; this he promised to do.
I say that he did not promise. Even as late as last weekend, his mother had received a letter from him saying that he was waiting to hear if he was to be released.
I submit that this is a case for consideration on compassionate grounds. The mother submitted a doctor's certificate about her own condition. Why should the First Lord decline to consider that point? It is very material. I did not write to the boy in the first place. His mother wrote to me, and I wrote to the son to say that I was putting the matter to the First Lord. I would not have pleaded his case had I believed that he really wanted to remain in the Service. I assure the Minister that I am not making this appeal because I want the boy to come out from the Navy. What I say is that the boy himself has a right to change his mind, and to have his case considered.
I wrote to the boy, as I say, and he was questioned about my letter. If the Minister denies that, he can go into the question of inquiries about the House of Commons postmark on the letter. I am prepared to go with the officers concerned, and with the Minister.

to investigate. If a boy feels that he has made a mistake in joining, and if the mother feels that she has made a mistake in giving her consent for him to join, it is a disgrace if he cannot be released unless the mother considerably impoverishes herself. She has no help whatever. Although not really well enough, she goes out to work. I plead with the First Lord to reconsider this matter. If necessary, I will supply him with all the details I can obtain and will go to Gosport—where the boy is—with him, because this is something that should be investigated.

4.0 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I certainly do not intend to pursue the merits of the case which has been pressed at some length in two debates now by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). Indeed, I am not at all sure that these personal cases can appropriately be dealt with in any great detail in this Committee. What he said, however, leads me to repeat a suggestion I have made before which has a direct bearing on this Vote. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to changing the procedure whereby these appeals for compassionate release from the Services are heard?
I have never been able to understand why the Service Departments wish to settle them by administrative action. We have tribunals which consider, shall we say, the case of conscientious objectors and similar cases with regard to entry of men on to this Vote. Why cannot the work of those tribunals be extended to men already serving, thus obviating the necessity for the Crown to be, or anyhow to appear to be, judge in its own cause?

Mr. James Griffiths: It is a good suggestion.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman agrees and says that it is a good suggestion, but I am bound to say that, although I have put it forward when speaking on a number of occasions, I have never succeeded in having it agreed to. I think that it would save the time of the Committee and of the House in dealing with cases of this nature if a reform like that were introduced.
There are two other matters to which I wish to refer on this Vote. One of the most striking features is the big percentage increase, under Subhead E, that is to say, marriage allowances. I presume that the big increase arises as a result of the higher rates of marriage allowance, and not because the Admiralty expects a higher proportion of personnel to become married in the coming financial year, although, no doubt, the increase in the rates will have that effect as well. I still consider that my hon. Friend would do well to look into the question whether the marriage allowance as paid unconditionally to very young ratings is too high in relation to the basic pay.
It is a striking fact that the proportion of males aged about 21 who are married is higher in the Services than it is in civil life. When one considers that a young man serving in the Armed Forces is really better off if he does not marry, at any rate, until he is 23 or 24, it seems open to question whether the present policy is wise. I should like my hon. Friend to consider whether something should be done by way of incentive to the man who marries later on, whether, perhaps, a higher rate might be paid to the man who draws it for a shorter time through being married for a shorter period of his service.
The other point to which I should like to draw attention has been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who opened the debate for the Opposition. He asked what is to happen to the families of men of the Nore Command when that Command closes? I must say that I feel in some difficulty, because I am not sure that this is not really a question of the disposal of the married quarters. However, there is a tenuous connection with the Vote, because, if the families are moved from their married quarters, they will come on to a higher rate of marriage allowance.
On that basis, I venture to suggest that, although the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is, I am sure, inspired by the best intentions, it would, I believe, raise a very dangerous precedent if furnished married quarters were to be supplied to the families of men at places remote from where they may be serving. That would be quite a new principle.

Mr. Steele: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the point I was making was that the Admiralty is closing down the Nore Command, and the families will be left there after the men have been posted to another station. How long will they be expected to remain there? Will the Admiralty be selling the houses? Perhaps I did not put it completely, but I did not want to catch the disapproving eye of the Chair too quickly in this matter; it was just the general problem that I was raising.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is an interesting problem. I merely repeat that I think it would be a rather dangerous precedent to establish the idea of providing, on this Vote or on any other, married quarters for men remote from where they happen to be serving. If they were disposed of, I should have thought that something more on the lines of disposing of them on easy terms to the occupants at the time of the move would, perhaps, be more attractive and more fruitful.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: One point I wish to raise has a tenuous connection with the Vote, Subhead A, "Pay of Officers". In the recent debate on the Navy Estimates, I asked the Financial Secretary whether he would give me some information about facilities for promotion from the lower deck. He very kindly sent me a letter giving me some information, but I should like to ask for a few more details and figures. Can he tell us what is the proportion of serving officers at present who have gained promotion from the lower deck? Could he give me a comparison of the latest figure with, say, the figure in 1949 or 1950 or some convenient date at about that time, so that we may see whether the proportion is increasing or not?
This is obviously a very important matter. If I may say so, naval officers on the whole are excellent, but I feel that, if the source from which they are derived is broadened, they may become even more excellent. I am absolutely certain that, if the opportunities for promotion from the lower deck are extended, the Navy will become an even more attractive Service for recruits.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: I wish to draw attention to the education allowances. Each one of us in this Committee feels that the fewest possible financial penalties should rest on married officers and men in the Services resulting from the fact that they are liable to have to move about. Obviously, in equity, they should not be penalised financially as against a civilian who can remain in one place for some time, if not indefinitely. Also, as a disincentive to recruitment, it is a factor of some importance. Under Subhead L, "Education Allowances", we are told that these are
payable in respect of children between the ages of 11 and 18 years".
Might not the starting age be lowered a little so that the allowance would be paid sooner?
We are further told that personnel are eligible for the allowance when they are serving abroad—that is obvious—and, also, those who are subject to frequent changes of station in the United Kingdom are eligible. I feel that that definition should be very generously interpreted, because even one change of station can have exactly the result to which I have referred, causing a great deal of inconvenience and financial handicap. I cannot see why only those who are subject to frequent changes of station should be eligible, and I hope that this provision is generously interpreted.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have a question to put on Subhead H. We are told in the fourth paragraph of the Explanatory Notes, "Miscellaneous Allowances" that
Provision is made for awards to officers qualifying at the Civil Service Commission Examinations for Interpreters
and that the amounts of their awards vary from £30 for French to £180 for Chinese and Japanese.
I should like to know whether these provisions apply to men as well as to officers. Further, I should like to know why the figures for officers who wish to study Russian are omitted. If it is £30 for French and £180 for Chinese and Japanese, where do the people who wish to study Russian come in? I understand, from our debates, that the main potential enemy is not the Chinese but the Russians, yet we are told nothing about

awards given to people who wish to study Russian.
I attach importance to this matter, because I believe that the more officers in the Navy study Russian the better they will learn to read the Russian newspapers. Perhaps these figures have been omitted for a mysterious reason. It may be that the Admiralty takes the view that learning Russian is bad for their morale. I can understand that view, because if some of these officers learn to read Russian they will read the Russian Navy's official organ, "Red Fleet", which is a most tendentious paper.

Mr. Walter Edwards: That would not be of much use to them.

Mr. Hughes: I would like to know why there is no mention of the awards that are being given to people studying Russian, when the whole object of the Navy Estimates is to be prepared to fight the Russians. What does an officer who is studious enough to learn Russian receive? It may be that the danger is that by reading the "Red Fleet" he may acquire some knowledge of Marxist-Leninism or some other theoretical aspect of Communism. That would be the very opposite effect from that which the Admiralty would desire. It might destroy their morale.

Mr. Edwards: Why not give them "Comic Cuts" to read?

Mr. Hughes: There are a number of both officers and men who can and do read "Comic Cuts".
I want to know why the Russians have been omitted and exactly what award students who do acquire a knowledge of Russian get. Is it between £30 and £180 for the Chinese? Why are the Chinese singled out? In all of our debates I have never heard anything about the Chinese Navy being a menace. I assume that there is a reason why the students should be encouraged to read Chinese and Japanese. I would like to know from the Minister how many officers have acquired a knowledge of Russian and exactly what payment they receive as a result.

Mr. Baldock: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the article in the "Red Fleet", which said that the Sea Cadet Corps was used by the Government for political indoctrination—

The Chairman: Order.

4.12 p.m

Mr. E. G. Willis: My hon. Friends have raised a number of points and I have no wish to stand between them and the Parliamentary Secretary; but I would like to ask one or two questions which have not been raised.
My first point concerns the Nore Command. I agree that something should be said concerning the Service personnel to be affected by the closing of the Nore Command. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of concern about this matter, and anything that the hon. Gentleman can say would be helpful in allaying that concern.
For a number of years we have been concerned, on both sides of the Committee, with the increasing number of naval officers, particularly high ranking officers, and the failure of the Admiralty to get rid of many of them. I would like to know whether the closing of the Nore Command will enable us to do this. It seems to me that with the closing of the Nore Command at least some of the higher-ranking officers ought to be dispensed with. We probably still require most of the officers, but I should have thought that we would require fewer officers if the Command is closed.
My second point relates to the rates of pay published in Cmd. 365. It has become the general practice in the Services, when considering rates of pay, to give overall, I was about to say, flat-rate increases. They are flat-rate increases to certain branches and ratings which correspond to the ranks in the Army. I wonder whether this is the best way of dealing with questions of pay. This is a big question. The Labour Government introduced the principle of uniformity for all the Services—the equating of certain ranks in the Navy with certain ranks in the Army and Air Force.
There is undoubtedly a great deal to be said for this proposition. But it leads to a certain number of difficulties. For instance, at present, in each Service there are particular branches for which we cannot recruit men. Whenever we cannot get recruits, the solution of the Government is to give an overall increase in pay. The experience in the past has been that this does not solve the problem of the branches in which there is a shortage of men. The Government should look at this matter. The answer might rest in

the structure, which is being inquired into at present.
I raise the point because it ought to be looked at in connection with the classification structure of the lower deck in the Navy, and changes should be made accordingly. We are getting to a situation where, unnecessarily I think, we tackle this problem in an overall manner instead of in an individual manner in an attempt to deal with difficulties that are exceedingly acute. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when the Admiralty considers the question of the classification of the lower deck and the ratings structure attention ought to be paid to this problem. We ought to ask ourselves whether our method of tackling the question of pay is the right one.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): Perhaps the Committee would not mind if, first, I answered the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), as he has told me that he has to attend a Committee. He asked me whether I would say a word about the problem that he raised. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) was right in saying that it is very difficult to deal with these matters in debate across the Floor of the House. In general, in these compassionate cases—most of which come to me and in which a great many hon. Members on both sides are involved—there is the utmost sympathy shown by the Admiralty in its examination of them. But we have to lay down hard and fast rules on compassionate discharges. In other words, there has to be a very real compassionate reason why a man should be discharged after having taken on an obligation in signing on.
The domestic circumstances of this boy, Castello, despite what the hon. Gentleman says—and I understand his feelings in the matter—did not match up to the standards which permit us to give a compassionate discharge. Part of the trouble, I think—it happens in many cases, particularly of young boys—is that the influence works both ways. He appears to be unhappy and his home life and family push him the other way and he builds up a sense of friction and


grievance which is not often there, and it is magnified.
It would be best if the hon. Gentleman would come to see me privately, when I will talk it over with him in my office and try to persuade him that this matter has been considered with the utmost sympathy and that the boy, if he would settle down, has a good career in front of him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me so that we can talk about this case privately.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) raised a number of points. Perhaps it would be convenient if I went through, in order, the questions that he raised.
I was asked about the officer-rating ratio in the W.R.N.S. by comparison with that in the Service generally. The point about the W.R.N.S. is that many services are provided for them. I hope that in such a matter all of us are both honourable and gallant and that we are glad that they are looked after so well. For instance, they do not have a planning organisation of their own, they do not have a hydrographer, and they do not have a number of other specialist organisations which exist in the Admiralty and which make provisions for the Service generally. The W.R.N.S. tag along, too.
It is, therefore, not fair to compare the officer-rating ratio in the W.R.N.S., which is 77 per 1,000, with the officer-rating ratio in the Service generally, which is 118 per 1,000. We plan by 1963 to bring that ratio down to 111, which, I hope, will satisfy the hon. Member that we are aware of the position and are doing our best to try to achieve a better balance.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about admirals. Admirals provide a very good cock-shy. I suspected that this question would be asked and investigated the matter in some detail. It is a complicated problem, but I played a game rather like "Hunt the Admirals" and went through the list with considerable care to see how the admirals are posted.
The hon. Member mentioned that we are estimating for 81 admirals in the general list this year, but, in fact, we shall have only 79. Of those 79, 17 are specialists, either engineers, supply, secretariat or electrical. That leaves 62 to be accounted for in the general list.

Of these, seven are in full-time N.A.T.O. or other allied jobs. That reduces the figure to 55. Of the 55, 12 are seagoing admirals in command.
Next, there are 24 admirals in more or less traditional posts, in which I include the commanders-in-chief in the home ports, Flag Officer, Scotland, and so on. We have flag officers in Malta and Gibraltar and other places, there is a Flag Officer, Submarines, a Flag Officer, Air and a Flag Officer, Air Training. In addition, there is a Flag Officer, Greenwich, and a flag officer at the Imperial Defence College. I have previously mentioned the hydrographer and D.N.I. All these 24 are traditional posts for admirals.
This makes 36, which leaves 19 of the 55 still to be accounted for. Here we come to the personnel, staff and weapons side, and also to the documents side. There are 12 admirals to be found in these categories. This leaves seven, who are usually either working on special committees or are on their way to take up new appointments or on leave or sick; they are in the pipeline.
We intend to continue to reduce the number of flag officers and we hope that by January, 1959, there will be 10 or 12 fewer admirals than in January, 1958. The question of the Nore Command is also involved here because that post will be abolished and will not be replaced. The command in the North Channel of the N.A.T.O. element will be given to some other admiral but a special post will not be created to fill it.

Mr. Willis: I take it that the same opportunities will be available for technical branches to reach the highest ranks of the Service as are available to the general branch. It is important that that should be the case.

Mr. Allan: The number of specialist admirals is likely to increase.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked about National Service grants and how much of Subhead E, Vote I, was devoted to these grants. He asked whether cost-of-living increases were included in them. These grants are made by an inter-Service committee. The basis on which they are made is that the man's family standards should not fall below a certain level. In general, the intention is to see that his standards are maintained at the level at which they stood


when he joined the Service. The payments alter when the family conditions alter. If another child is born while a National Service man is in the Service, the National Service grant may well be increased. These grants apply in nearly all cases to married men and, since the majority of the National Service men in the Navy are not married, the numbers concerned are relatively small.
Of the sum in Subhead E, £25,000 is allocated to National Service grants. That is the same amount as was allocated in the previous year, but the number of National Service men in the Service has almost halved, from nearly 8,000 to just over 4,000. We thus have a fairly substantial over-provision in case there is need to increase the grants.
Several questions have been asked about the Nore Command. They were asked by the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, West and Edinburgh, East and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The problem when we shut down a home depôt now is not as great as it was, because we have central drafts. The old idea of a depôt has rather disappeared, because central drafting has altered the position considerably.
We have kept two connections with the depots. The first is the selected depot. The value of the selected depot is from the point of view of the family welfare organisation. It will not be possible for existing Chatham ratings to opt for Chatham as their selected depôt after the autumn of 1960, but the family welfare service will remain there until it is no longer required. The other connection with the depôt is what we call the preference depôt. If a man is coming home or is ending a general service commission and is due for a spell of short leave, he can indicate a preference to be drafted to a certain area because he has personal connections there.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Thank you very much. I just wondered whether the welfare services which are to remain at Chatham will be given some extra power and will not have to work within their present limited regulations.

Mr. Allan: I do not think that extra power will be necessary, but, if it is, then we shall certainly consider it.
I was mentioning the question of the drafting preference. Ratings can still choose, and are, in fact, now choosing, Chatham. They will be able to continue to do so for quite a while if they wish, but the number of shore billets will he very greatly reduced, and it will not be possible to draft people in accordance with their drafting preference to any great extent. It is not intended to give up the naval married quarters in the Chatham area until the demand for them ceases. The houses which we are building in certain areas will be completed.
What we shall ultimately do with them is still under consideration, but certainly for a period, and for quite a long period, families will be allowed to stay in the married quarters at Chatham, even though the husbands have been drafted elsewhere. I would see no objection, despite what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said, to keeping a number of married quarters permanently in the Chatham area, even though the members of the Service may be serving in other places. We are relatively short of married quarters and will quite gladly have this general addition to the pool.

Mr. W. Edwards: I gather that the hon. Gentleman was saying that the married quarters which are being built in Chatham for the personnel in Chatham barracks, and the programme for Chatham barracks, are still to be completed. There is, of course, a programme for Portsmouth barracks and for Devonport barracks. Does he say that when naval personnel who have lived in the Chatham barracks in due course go to Portsmouth or Devonport their married quarters will remain at Chatham, and that though a man may be stationed at Devonport he will have to travel to Chatham to go to the married quarters there?

Mr. Allan: No, but they would probably prefer to have married quarters at Chatham than nowhere. That is the point. I was not saying that the whole scheme in the Chatham area would be completed, but only those houses which are under construction. The married quarters programme will, of course, continue in other places, but the Navy will be very glad to have a little pool of married quarters which can be made available in various circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked about interpreters, and so did the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The latter, surprisingly enough, did not seem to think that there was any good will in learning languages; he seemed to think that we were encouraging learning these languages in order to be hostile to people. There is a good deal of friendship to be gained from speaking a man's language, and it is not only in terms of ill will that this is encouraged, as he seemed to suggest.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, no.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked how many officers qualified for the top rate, which is for Chinese and Japanese. I understand that there are four officers at present serving who qualify for the top rate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire asked me about Russian. In the Vote we have merely indicated examples of the minimum scale and the top scale. The Russian language can, of course, be learnt, and interpreters are paid £90. I do not know quite how that figure was arrived at, but that is the figure, and we apparently have 10 first-class Russian interpreters.

Mr. Hughes: That is a very small amount for anyone studious enough to acquire Russian.

Mr. Allan: I should have thought it was about right in relation to Chinese and Japanese. We have, as I was saying, 10 first-class Russian interpreters, and 34 second-class.

Mr. Steele: Will the hon. Gentleman not ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to take on a temporary position as interpreter? He is a fluent speaker of Russian himself.

Mr. Allan: I do not know whether he would qualify for the £90.
Both hon. Gentlemen asked me why this was paid to officers and not to ratings. The point is that we, unlike the other Services, do not, in fact, have ratings living in the countries concerned, and most of the naval requirements are for intelligence, attache and N.A.T.O. appointments, which are, by and large, filled only by officers.
Another point is that the other Services employ uniformed personnel in their attache and intelligence offices, whereas we in the Navy employ civilians. There is, therefore, really no requirement for ratings to qualify as interpreters, but there is certainly nothing to stop them learning these languages if they wish to do so. We do not, I am sorry to say, encourage it.
A question was also asked about the purchase of discharges. The fact is that we have increased, by an inter-Service agreement, the price, and we do not expect any greater number of purchases of discharge than we had last year. I think that that answers all the questions put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West.
In connection with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady-wood, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East suggested that tribunals might consider these cases of compassionate discharge. There is a good deal to be said for that and I am, oddly enough, already in the process of investigating this problem to see what can be done. I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which seems, from what he said, to have been in a pigeon-hole for some time. We will take it out, dust it and have a look at it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also mentioned marriage allowances. The amount for this has increased, as he rightly surmised, because of a larger allowance rather than because of a larger marriage expectancy.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) asked about promotion from the lower deck. About 25 per cent. of the general list officers in the Navy come from the S.D. list. I am told that in 1949 the percentage was 18, so that there has been an increase. It is the policy to increase that still further. At present, we have an intake of about 140 per annum from the S.D. list, and this will continue at around that figure for some time, but will increase when the rundown is coming to its end and is completed to 180 a year.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: What would that be in percentage?

Mr. Allan: It is impossible to give the percentage because of the wastage of those who come in by other schemes, but, obviously, after the next five years the proportion of lower deck promotions will go higher than 25 per cent. I should not like to set a target, or to say what it will be. While on the subject of lower deck promotion, I should like to say that there is a new scheme, the details of which we hope to announce shortly, for upper yardmen promotion.
This we hope we start in 1959, although I hope that the details will be announced within a month or two. I think that this will be of tremendous benefit and an improvement on the existing interim upper yardmen scheme. Broadly, the intention is to make them almost parallel and bring them in line with the cadet entry through Dartmouth. This again, as it comes on, will increase the percentage of lower deck promotions. The figures I have just given refer only to special duty men, not to upper yardmen.

Mr. Willis: Has there been any increase in the upper yardmen scheme during the last year?

Mr. Allan: Last year there was an increase of seven in the numbers of the upper yard men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) asked about education classes. This is very often considered and is being looked at sympathetically. At present, I am not able to answer the point he raised, but I will look into it and get in touch with him about it. I am grateful to him for making the suggestion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £68,167,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £13,026,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

4.42 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to raise one or two points on victualling. I am particularly grateful to the Civil Lord for replying to the points I made during the recent debate on the Navy Estimates. I am glad to see that there is an attempt to reorganise and co-ordinate the victualling yards. I hope that this reorganisation will be carried out because, as I said previously, although they are co-ordinated the expense does not seem to be reduced at all. In fact, the hiring charges are still increasing.
There are two specific questions I should like to ask. One is about the Admiralty Police who are guarding these yards. I understand that at least 58 will be redundant from overseas. These men are of considerable age, and had anticipated being in their jobs until they retired. Are they given an opportunity of taking a job at some of the yards here on their return? I understand that the home Admiralty staff is being cut by only one, so perhaps it might be possible to take some there.
Last year I raised the question of the Admiralty police uniform. I understand this was promised for last autumn, but so far nothing has been seen of it. I hope that it has not got into one of the big storages and been lost.

Mr. R. Allan: Is this on Vote 2?

Miss Vickers: Yes, in page 27.
Opposite, my hon. Friend will see that the police victualling yards are to be reduced from 100 to 42. I am glad, too, that more money is being given for food. It is extremely important that the food should be good, particularly on ships. It makes a great deal of difference to the personnel.
The only other point I wish to mention is on Subhead G, page 27, paragraph (3), where it says:
Grog money. The rate of grog money is at present fixed at 3d. a day or 21s. a quarter.
I reckon that a quarter has about 91 days in it, and if that is correct the chap is being cheated by 1s. 9d. I should like to have an explanation of that. I am particularly interested in the personnel side.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I, also, am interested in the question of the food, and am extremely keen that it should be as good as possible. I am a little surprised to see an increase in the cost of provisions. This year Vote 7 is considerably smaller than last year. If my mathematics are correct, it is down by about 8 per cent. We were told in the Navy Estimates debate that it was to be followed by a further 6 per cent. or thereabouts during the course of this year.
In page 26, Subhead G, the cost of provisions is shown as having gone up, again if my mathematics are correct, by about 7 per cent. Many of the other items in this Vote have gone down in price, some of them very considerably. Subhead K, "mess traps," for example, are down by about 60 per cent.; Subhead M, "clothing, etc.", is down by about 20 per cent.; clothing itself, in fact, is down by 50 per cent.
All these are very desirable savings. I am not suggesting that we should save on the food by giving the Navy bad food, but I do not quite understand why, when Vote A is coming down, including the cost of clothing the Navy, the cost of food should have gone up apparently by 7 per cent.

Mr. Norman Pannell: The only point I wish to raise is on the number of civilian personnel in the victualling department. During the debate on the Navy Estimates, my hon. Friend the Civil Lord made a gallant defence against the charges of waste and extravagance, especially in regard to the civilian personnel. Is there any justification for a total personnel of 3,197 compared with 1,603 in 1937? I admit that there has been a reduction in numbers over the past year, but it seems difficult to justify twice the number of personnel today that there were in 1937, when the uniformed naval personnel has increased only fractionally compared with twenty years ago.

Mr. R. Allan: My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked me about the police. The uniform comes under Vote 8. The Admiralty constabulary generally is being very slightly reduced. I will look into the point she raised, because I am not able to give her an immediate answer to her question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) asked why the cost of provisions under Subhead G had gone up when we were having a general run-down of personnel. The answer is that under an inter-Service agreement the Navy is victualling the other two Services in certain places in the United Kingdom, and especially in Malta. The extra cost of this is, of course, borne in the Navy Vote here under provisions, but it will be recovered in the form of repayments from the other Services. I hope that the extra cost may reflect a better standard of food as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) asked me about general numbers. As was pointed out previously on the question of civilians, more work is being done by civilians than was being done before by uniformed personnel. This once again releases uniformed personnel for service at sea, which is where we want them. That is the main reason, but the reduction is also due to the recent closing of establishments at home and abroad.
The hon. Lady asked me about grog. That question is always coming up. The cost of grog is 1s. 1¾d. and a rating gets 3d. a day, or 21s. a quarter if he decides not to take grog. There must be some payment by way of a fixed rate in those circumstances and, in fact, he does better out of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £13,026,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 959.

Vote 6. Scientific Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £17,099,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I have one or two questions to ask on this Vote. The first two are on smaller items and one concerns the


Isaac Newton telescope. Could the hon. Gentleman say something about that? I would have thought it wasteful to start projects and then to stop work on them. There must be some waste involved in that process, no matter what the job. Also, it seems curious to stop the work at a time when people are becoming increasingly interested in outer space, so may we know why the work has stopped?
My second point concerns the International Hydrographic Bureau. There is a reduction in the personnel there and I would like to know whether this is due to more efficient organisation or to some other reason. I ask that because this Bureau produces a good income, which has been increasing to an astonishing extent in the past three or four years. In the same period, the number of charts sold has increased by 350,000, and there has also been a substantial increase in the income of almost 45 per cent. Therefore, we would like to know what is happening in the Bureau and what has brought about the decrease in the number of personnel.
I have some questions to put on items under Subheads N and O, which cover the bulk of the expenditure for scientific services. The interesting thing about them is that a number of scientific and experimental personnel employed there, and in ancillary grades, has fallen substantially for two successive years. On the face of it that is good, because if we can have scientists working in industry instead of in the Services it is much better for the country. Has this been brought about by reorganisation of the research Departments of the Admiralty?
There has also been a general decrease for two years now in research and development contracts under subhead O. What appears to be strange is that the emphasis is on scientific research and development, and here we are dealing with a Service in which new ideas are being worked out and in which an enormous amount of research and development is required. One would have expected it to remain at the same level instead of decreasing. And, even if it had done that, there would have been a decrease in the actual volume of work because of increased costs.
If this has come about as the result of reorganisation taking place, obviously

it is desirable. One would not like to think that the saving is being brought about by delaying work on important matters such as nuclear propulsion. We had some guarantees about this from the Civil Lord during the debate on Vote A, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say something more about it.

4.54 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I want to add one or two remarks to the observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Unlike him, I am concerned that there has not been a reduction in this total Vote. I would have expected to see a much bigger reduction, since the Service is being run down and a certain number of research and development projects are being abandoned, as we were told in the defence debate. It is particularly disturbing that Subhead O should have decreased to a great extent, whereas the amount spent on salaries, wages and allowances has increased.

Mr. Willis: With slightly fewer numbers employed.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes. I do not subscribe to the view that research and development can be increased merely by voting more money for it. The raw material of research and development is provided by scientists of the right kind, with the imagination and brains to produce the answers. It is possible to spend, as the Americans do, 20 or 30 times as much as we do and still get only two or three times greater results.
This is a difficult Vote to criticise, because we are rightly not let into the secrets of where the money is going, but I want to ask two questions. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the importance of going on with the nuclear submarine and other projects connected with nuclear propulsion. It would be much more economical if, in the main, those projects were handled by the Atomic Energy Authority, which handles our nuclear research for peaceful purposes generally. It would also be more economical to second the necessary personnel as application officers to the Authority.
My second question is whether we are right, now that the need for economy has become so urgent, to continue to have a separate naval radar research establishment. As I understand, the general principle is that equipment which is more or


less common to all Services is taken care of by the Ministry of Supply because it is uneconomical for each Service to be autonomous. I am no friend of the principle of having a Civil Ministry of Supply, and I spoke about this in the debate on the Air Estimates. As long as we have a separate Ministry of Supply, however, and without prejudice as to whether we believe in having these common Departments in a civilian Ministry or removing them to the Ministry of Defence, I still take leave to doubt whether it is economical for the Admiralty to continue to run an independent directorate of radar equipment, with its associated research establishment, which is one of the more costly of the establishments borne on this Vote.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I wish to follow up some remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) about nuclear propulsion. This is a matter which came out very fully in the Navy Estimates debate, and I think that the House and the country are extremely grateful to the Civil Lord for the work he is doing on the Galbraith Committee. There are certain questions relevant to this Vote which come within the problem of nuclear power which I should like to ask.
Are we, in fact, as a result of the way in which this money is spent, having to carry out much of the research and development which might have been carried out already by the United States, or are we, as a consequence of the declaration of interdependence, getting all—and I mean all—the information which we want and need? Are there still certain hesitations on the other side of the Atlantic due to the McMahon Act?
Is the declaration of interdependence working, or is the McMahon Act holding back information which we require, causing us to spend more money on research and development on this Vote, on which, if that declaration means what it was intended to mean, there should now be certain savings?
On the question of commercial nuclear propulsion, I should like to ask the Civil Lord whether he can enlarge slightly on what he said in his widing-up speech on the Navy Estimates in columns 1117–18

of 4th March. He was then referring to the possibility of this country having a commercial nuclear-powered ship in the water by about 1964. I realise the hesitations which he put around that phrase, and, obviously, no one could hold him to it, but when that is measured against the quotation which I gave in my own speech to the effect that the Americans are attempting to have this by 1965, it would appear that this country, as a result of the money spent on this Vote, may well be years ahead of the United States.
I do not think that the whole Committee is completely seized of the importance of what the Civil Lord said the other night. If what he said is accurate, then all this money spent on this Vote is not only money well spent, but it must continue to be spent so that we do establish our civil position. Can we have an assurance from the Civil Lord that that statement from him was not one provoked by an intervention in the debate, but was carefully thought out? Can he define the meaning of his statement that we might have a nuclear ship in the water by 1964. Does it mean that, as a result of the money spent on this Vote, we shall be ahead of the United States?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked me a question about the Isaac Newton telescope. He wondered why this work had been halted. He is correct in saying that it is of the greatest importance to the nation, but it really has nothing to do with Sputniks, as he seemed to suggest. The purpose of the telescope is to permit the extension of astronomical and astrophysical research beyond the limits of our existing equipment.
In view of the importance of this to the nation, the cost of this work, it was intended, should be borne between the Admiralty and the Treasury. Unfortunately, in the light of the present financial stringency, it was reluctantly decided that the project would have to be suspended, and news was given of this to the Royal Society on 28th January.
One thing I should emphasise is that the work has only been suspended, and that we hope to start it again. No waste will have occurred because all that has been done so far is that £28,000 has been


spent on primary design and study work. Nothing at all has been spent on buildings; that can be held in suspense.

Mr. Willis: This is rather interesting. The Civil Lord says the sum spent is £28,000, but is it not the case that the year before last the amount was £51,000 and last year it was £30,000?

Mr. Galbraith: The figures I have show that £28,000 has been spent, of which the Admiralty have paid £14,000. It certainly seems to be peculiar, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will take an opportunity afterwards of checking the figures.

Mr. Willis: Does not that give point to the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee about the Admiralty Estimates?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a second point, when he suggested that instead of wasting money we were, in fact, making it in the hydrographers' department. He wondered whether there was any connection between the reductions in staff and the greater amount of money we were making. I wish there was some connection but, in fact, in selling these charts, we have had to adjust our prices upwards to cover the cost of production. At the same time, curiously enough, in spite of the increased cost, the sales are still expected to increase, and that explains the credit side of the Vote.
As to the reduction in staff, this has been imposed upon us because of the general need to economise and not to make the services perhaps quite as "ritzy" as we would like, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to maintain the tradition for accurate work which has earned the hydrographer of the Navy such a reputation that today when he issues a new chart, the rates of insurance of shipping companies go down.

Mr. Willis: On that point, is not this a curious form of economy imposed upon the Department—to cut down the number of printers and engravers, the people producing the charts, while the sale of those charts is increasing enormously? Is there not some contradiction here?

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry if I have not explained myself quite clearly. It is

not so much that sales have gone up as that the prices which we are asking for the charts have gone up. There has been a slight increase in the volume, but the main increase has been due to the increase in price of the article we are offering for sale.
Let me now turn to the cuts in research and development, about which the hon. Gentleman asked me some questions. He seemed to think that we were cutting too much whereas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), on the other hand, seemed to think that we were not cutting enough. That encourages me to think that we have struck the right balance between the two opposing views. The hon. Gentleman wanted to be assured that these cuts were not affecting important work such as the development of nuclear propulsion. I can give him that assurance. It is only the less important kind of work which we have to delay and slow down. The kind of work like nuclear propulsion, which we regard as being of the very highest importance, is going ahead.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East asked why we should not leave all this to the Atomic Energy Authority. In this matter, we are working in the closest association with the Authority, and I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend would have been the last person to suggest that we could leave the mechanism going into a floating platform to an authority such as that. We really must, as far as we can, keep control of this in our own hands, while working in very close association with the Atomic Energy Authority.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not suggest that. What I said was that the main thing should be organised by the Atomic Energy Authority and the naval contribution should be the supply of the application officers, and so forth. Perhaps I could put a specific question to my hon. Friend? Is the Navy setting up a special research establishment to deal with this, or is it making use of the facilities which have been developed for the peaceful uses of atomic energy as well?

Mr. Galbraith: No, it is not setting up a special department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) also asked some questions about the development of nuclear propulsion for ships. I can assure him that we are working in the closest possible co-operation with the Americans on warships and that there is no duplication in the work for civil ships and for warships.
My hon. Friend asked me to be a little more specific about the date 1964, by which time, I said, if all went well, we hoped to have a ship in the water. I can go no further than what I said in the earlier debate, but I can assure him that I was speaking not "off the cuff", but with due consideration. I do not want to be tied down to that date. It depends how technical developments go in the next year or two.

Mr. P. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I understand the escape clause which he would naturally attach to what he said. However, does what he said mean that we expect to put a ship in the water a year ahead of the present American plan?

Mr. Galbraith: If the American plan is what my hon. Friend says it is, then I suppose it means that it does.
I think that that covers all the issues raised by this Vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £17,099,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £12,603,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: In the debate on the Navy Estimates, I dealt specifically with the effect of the Navy's future rôle on civilian labour and on

the prospects of Service personnel. I want now to draw attention to the considerable decrease in the amount of money to be spent on dockyards and factories abroad in the ensuing year compared with the present year. The figure decreases from £391,000 to £50,000.
The expenditure of £50,000 on dockyards and factories abroad in the course of twelve months is not considerable. I presume that the drastic decrease is because of the closing of the Hong Kong dockyard and the possible reduction in the use of Malta dockyard. It is obvious that not so much money will be needed for Hong Kong dockyard from now on, because it has been announced by the Admiralty that that dockyard is to close down.
I want to make a plea for those locally entered people employed by us in the Hong Kong dockyard. We had a very full discussion about the effects of the closing of Sheerness and Portland dockyards and Chatham Barracks and certain naval air stations, but we did not deal with the problem in our Colonies. The Admiralty has as much concern with the Colonies as has the Colonial Office. The plain fact of the matter is that roughly 5,000 people employed under Vote 10 will be affected by the Admiralty policy and will eventually lose their jobs in Hong Kong as a result.
I had the great privilege of going to Hong Kong and representing the Admiralty when I was the Civil Lord. I want to say here and now that those locally entered people employed by us in Hong Kong do a very good job of work for the Admiralty and it is essential that we should not merely throw them on the scrap heap. Nothing could be worse to our colonial relations than if it got abroad that we were not giving people in the Colonies affected by the change of our defence policy that due and fair consideration to which they were entitled.
Anyone who has been to the Far East knows that it is not very easy for the Hong Kong Government or the Colonial Office to provide alternative work for these people. They do not have a very good life when they are in work, but the life must be absolutely terrible when they have no money coming in. They do not have the services which we have here if we are unfortunate enough to


become unemployed. It is very important that the Admiralty should give the utmost consideration to this problem to see that our name is kept clean when we have to carry out the proposals upon which the Government have decided.
Has the Admiralty any knowledge of possible alternative work in Hong Kong for those people who will be affected by the closing of the dockyard? It may be that the Admiralty has not yet considered that aspect of the matter, but it is an aspect which should be considered by good employers. If there is no alternative employment which could be provided by the Admiralty or by the Hong Kong Government, what is to happen about the dockyards? Is it to be gradually evacuated and its contents left to deteriorate and rot so that we may save money as a result of that evacuation, or has the Admiralty any ideas about its possible use so that employment for those people who are to lose their jobs as a result of Government policy can be found?
Those are two very important points, and the third is compensation. Has an amount of compensation been suggested to the associations? It must be borne in mind that what might be called the trade unions of Honk Kong are in no way comparable to the unions of Great Britain. They are staff associations, and even when I was at the Admiralty it often took months and months for communications to pass to and from the associations.
They are not strong organisations. In view of that fact it is most important that a sympathetic line should come from the Admiralty; it should not wait to be pressed from outside. When Hong Kong dockyard is closed, I hope that the Admiralty can ensure, first, that if the workers cannot obtain alternative employment they will receive very sympathetic consideration in the matter of compensation for loss of employment, and secondly, see whether the dockyard can be used for other industrial purposes, so that some of those who would otherwise be unemployed may obtain work.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Baldock: Although the Vote has diminished by £5 million since last year, in spite of the fact that there has been

a reduction in numbers under Subhead A—Salaries and Allowances of Superintending Officers and Others—there is nevertheless an increase in salaries of £10,000. This is one of the most difficult increases to explain. It is a very large sum of money. Nearly £1¼ million is being spent upon these personnel, which are equivalent to one of the categories of scientific officers. With a diminishing quantity of work for a diminishing fleet, and with a diminishing number of establishments and dockyards, we should get a proportionately greater decrease in numbers and some saving in these salaries.
I want to make a point with regard to the recovery of money upon establishments which the Navy is closing down. I hope that the Navy will take the best professional advice as to how the largest sum of money can be realised in the disposal of these establishments, so that a counterbalancing sum can come in on the credit side of future Navy Estimates. Many of these sites are in valuable positions and contain plant, machinery and buildings which would be suitable for industrial purposes, and it is important, in the public interest, that the highest prices should be realised for them.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I hope that the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary or the Civil Lord will not follow the point made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) too far in regard to holding up, possibly for a long time, the disposal of these sites. The most important thing is not the money they realise but their alternate use for the employment of displaced people.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), I want to raise a point in connection with Vote 10, because I can find no other more suitable Vote. The point I want to make can be said to come within the terms of Subhead B (c)—Central Training and Educational Establishments. My point arises from a comment that was made during the Estimates debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). He passed on to the House criticisms that he had heard concerning the quality and methods of training in the Navy. He was not making the criticisms himself; he was passing on some that he had heard.
I was rather alarmed by these criticisms, and I would like some explanation. I have a special personal interest in the methods of teaching in the Navy, because, by the most extraordinary piece of luck, I happened to be given the job of organising the very first course in the history of the Navy on instructional technique. I thought that it was a rash undertaking and expected the G.Is. to resent being told how to teach gunnery by somebody as inexperienced as myself. Not only did they accept it, however, but Whale Island and gunnery schools and depots elsewhere established courses of their own in order to improve the quality of instruction.
I should like to know whether those courses on instructional technique are still being carried on and are increasing, and whether the criticisms that the hon. and gallant Member mentioned are still justifiable.

5.26 p.m.

Miss Vickers: I want to raise some points in connection with the dockyards. The White Paper stated that there was to be an introduction of systematic planning for work in the dockyards, but I suggest that we cannot have any such systematic planning if we still have very old work-sheds in which to work. In Devonport dockyard there still exists an old rope walk, and a gallows beneath, where prisoners captured in the Napoleonic Wars were hanged. These sheds are extremely old and do not lend themselves to systematic planning for modern work.
I should like to know if the dockyards themselves will be replanned. If so, I want to make one or two suggestions. Other hon. Members have said that the Admiralty is apt to cling on to its land and buildings. Some hon. Members may have seen the television programme "Panorama" about three weeks ago, which contained an item concerning Devonport. In 1945 the Admiralty took over 182 acres, but it has been gradually handing this land back, until it now has only about 70 acres, and we are hoping to have a definite assurance that this land will also be handed back so that we can include it in our plans.
If extra space is needed in order to build new and modern workshops, I suggest that before taking land outside the dockyards at Devonport, Plymouth and Portsmouth the Admiralty should see

whether further room is available inside the dockyard walls. If it is found essential to place the buildings outside the walls, however, I suggest that it might not be found necessary to build enormous walls around the buildings. These walls are extremely expensive to construct.
If these buildings are outside the walls, however, and further cuts in dockyard requirements make their use unnecessary, they are far more likely to be taken over by private firms. If they are inside the dockyard a private firm has to go through all the difficulty of obtaining passes into the yard. I have previously asked whether a private firm could be allowed into one part of Devonport dockyard in order to carry out its repairs, but this was refused on the grounds that it was within the dockyard. We shall not be able to make use of the buildings in Devonport if they are enclosed within the dockyard walls.
I cannot go into as much detail as I should like in regard to Devonport, because I have had some conferences with the Civil Lord concerning the new scheme and it would be unfair for me to discuss the matter publicly now before he has had a chance of giving his considered opinion. Nevertheless, I hope he will reconsider the possibility of enclosing these shops with an ordinary wire fence instead of a wall.
In my constituency, too, it would mean a difference of at least £90,000 and possibly even more if he would consent not to close a certain road. As there are five public houses in that road and it will be necessary to compensate them, it is likely to prove an expensive scheme. It would be quite easy to make a change in the present plan.
I support what was said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) about the employees in Hong Kong. I have visited Hong Kong and know the splendid work they do and the tremendous difficulty of finding other work in that small island.
I wish to refer to the question of married quarters, which appears on page 140 of the Estimates. British personnel are coming back from Hong Kong and people are continually returning from Malta and Singapore. On arrival in this country they have nowhere to go with their families. Many of them have a number of children. Recently some of the establishments which


catered for dockyard personnel and their families have been closed or taken over by other authorities. I should like an assurance that families returning to this country may be allowed to occupy some of the new accommodation which it is proposed to erect.

5.31 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Committee will sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), and I wish to associate myself with his closing remarks. I feel it will be a sign of some mismanagement if the facilities at Hong Kong dockyard do not pass into civil control and immediate use as soon as the Navy has done with them. It is a well-organised place with a strong labour force behind it, and it is difficult to understand why it should not become immediately available to some civil firm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) referred to the small reduction in numbers and the actual increase in wages of the supervising staff borne on this Vote, notwithstanding the fact that the total Vote is down by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend, although I can understand that while the programme is running down in the first place one cannot expect an immediate reduction in the numbers of those employed in this sort of work. On the other hand, I suggest to the Minister that if he does not make sure that the number is cut down fairly soon we shall find the amount of work will go up, because there will be plenty of people to think up new projects and new ideas.
I wish to ask a question but find myself in some difficulty in knowing how to do so and at the same time keeping in order. Vote 10—Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad—does not represent anything like the total sum spent on works. In that respect, the Admiralty system of accounting is unique and makes it extremely difficult to exercise any form of Parliamentary control. If I may be allowed to invite the Minister's attention to page 116 of the Estimates, he will there find under Subhead B in section III of Vote 8 an additional sum of £5,236,000 which has to be added to the Vote 10 figure before we can arrive at something approaching the true cost of works and

buildings for the coming year. Whereas the Vote 10 component of these works and buildings has fallen by nearly 30 per cent., the curious thing is that the other component has actiually increased. That is by no means easy to understand, and perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us how much Vote 10 covers. Does it include lighting, heating and buildings and so forth? I suggest that this point needs examining, because one would expect the Subhead under Vote 8, which is buried away rather inconspicuously, to move more or less in accord with Vote 10.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Steele: To enable the Civil Lord and the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to collect their notes, I will give them an assurance that I shall not put any fresh questions. I wish to support the plea for the employees in Hong Kong which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards). I understand that the Admiralty is not being as generous in this matter as other employers in Hong Kong who are in a similar position, and the trade unions ask that at least this matter be considered by the Admiralty and something done. I should be grateful if the Civil Lord would tell us what are the terms under which the employment of these men is being discontinued and what scheme, if any, the Admiralty has in mind. Will there be something similar to what is done in this country about giving a week's pay for so many years of work or what is happening?

5.36 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) asked questions about our people in Hong Kong who will lose their jobs as a result of the closure of the dockyard there. His hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) suggested that we were not carrying out "good employer" practices. My information is that we are doing so. Our compensation terms are two weeks' pay for every year of service, and an employee can qualify for that after one year's service. The Colonial Government is associating with the Admiralty, and a local committee has been set up to try to find jobs for these people. So far that is going well, but of course it is always easier at the beginning.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) mentioned the possibility of making use of the dockyard as a whole unit. That is not possible for two reasons; first, there is still to be a small naval base there, and secondly, for reasons of town planning the Colonial Government wish to use that area for non-industrial purposes. As the hon. Member for Stepney will know, there are two good shipbuilding firms there and it may be possible to use some of these highly skilled men in those firms.

Mr. W. Edwards: There are a number of skilled men employed in the dockyard but a very much greater number of unskilled men who would not be able to find work in the shipyards. Is anything to be done for them to ensure that they are employed?

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks I am being lighthearted about this. I have been to Hong Kong and seen these people, and I know how long some of them have been in the service of the Admiralty. But the hon. Member knows as well as I that the Admiralty is not an Employment Exchange: it is a defence Department and has to conduct its affairs in the most economical way. That does not mean that the Admiralty has no responsibility or that it is walking out without doing anything. We are giving gratuities in accordance with what we understand to be "good employer" practice. In an endeavour to find jobs for these people we are allowing anyone who wishes to leave to go early, even though it may be awkward from the point of view of conducting the business of the dockyard; and we have set up a Committee in the yard to try to find new jobs. But we cannot make jobs for these people.

Mr. W. Edwards: Could we be assured that the gratuity which is being offered to these displaced workers at Hong Kong dockyard is equal to any gratuity paid by private enterprise when it has to close down in Honk Kong?

Mr. Galbraith: My information is that our terms are on a level with "good employer" practice in Hong Kong. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular point in mind, I will be very grateful if he can bring it to my notice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) wondered about the size of the supervisory staff. His point was really answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). It is obvious that, as we are running down, the works department will be the last department able to leave any particular place. The point about making sure of getting the largest possible sum was answered by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). Of course, we want to get as good a price as we can when we move out of a place, but it would be wrong to sterilise in any area a large amount of property which might be put to some industrial use and give work to the people who are left.
As for training, the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East, I understand that methods of training are to be investigated at Dartmouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) spoke about the condition of shops in the yard. I know, as she does, that some of them are old, but equally some are new. We hope that the proportion of new to old will improve. With regard to the size of the dockyard area, the hon. Lady knows that the matter is under discussion between my officials and those of the town council at Plymouth. At the moment, I would rather not say any more on the subject.
The hon. Lady raised a point about families returning from abroad. It might be met, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested earlier this afternoon, by the pool of married quarters which we may have in the Chatham area as a result of the closure of the Chatham Command. It might be a cushion to help these people when they come back from abroad. It is no more than a possibility.

Miss Vickers: It will not help them if they are employed in Devonport.

Mr. Galbraith: No, but a house anywhere may be better than no house at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, had a point on Vote 8 which he skilfully managed to bring up on Vote 10. One reason why the Vote 10 element looked so small is that we have been making considerable economies. That is one reason why these Votes have got out of balance. As to electrical work allied to Vote 10, we have a committee sitting on


the subject. In due course this work will be amalgamated into Vote 10, so that we shall be able to see the total cost of any building work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,603,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,521,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Steele: I wish to raise only one point, which is rather an important one for my constituents. On page 153 of the Estimates, under the heading "Welfare Expenses", I read:
Provision is made for grants towards the miscellaneous expenses of approved forms of recreation and the provision of amenities for personnel in ships and shore establishments and for juniors in training establishments.
It happens that the third submarine squadron is arriving in Gairloch, and unfortunately there are very few recreational facilities in the area for the personnel, who are indebted at the moment to the town council, the other local authorities, and local clubs, to find facilities for their recreation and canteens. There is a little golf course there which has been in existence for a hundred years. Unfortunately, it has now been sold over the head of the present occupant and it looks as though we shall have to do without that as well. I do not know whether the Admiralty can assist the local council to maintain this little golf course.
Will the personnel have to wait at the end of the queue for something to be done? This squadron has arrived in Gairloch which has no facilities. Cannot something special be done under this Vote to help it? Local people have been very good and helpful, but it is too much to ask them to continue when a fund is available for football parks and things of that kind which would help these people.

5.48 p.m.

Miss Vickers: I would refer my hon. Friend to page 148, where an estimate of £763,300 is made for canteens, a heavy cost. I should have thought that canteens would pay for themselves. It would be in the interest of everybody to make them economic concerns. I would like to know how this extra canteen expenditure arises. Service canteens have a regular clientèle. They do not have to be open every day whether people are coming in or not. They have regular helpers and regular clients and should be paying propositions.
On the same page is an Estimate of £8,900 for
Contributions to religious, charitable and other institutions.
I should like an explanation of this item and why the figure has gone up by £4,900. To what type of organisation does the Navy subscribe? Is it to its own religious organisation, or for helping the Salvation Army, which comes and does work at odd times? If so, I am pleased.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Atkins: The two items mainly responsible for the net increase in this Vote are Subheads A and D—Travelling, Subsistence and Passage Expenses—and Telegrams, Telephones and Postage. No doubt it will be argued that the figures are up because the cost of those services has increased. In any business organisation, when costs go up the first job of the management is to see if it can buy fewer of those things to keep the cost the same or to reduce it. Although the Vote is for miscellaneous effective services, I want to urge the absolute necessity for keeping these figures as low as possible because there are a great many things the Admiralty does which are more effective than these. If the cost of the postal services goes up, fewer telegrams should be sent and fewer telephone messages passed, and so on. I hope I may have an assurance that everything possible is being done in the Admiralty to keep those figures down.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked about facilities for the submarine flotilla which has just moved from Rothesay to Faslane in the Gairloch. One reason for the move is that, from a


welfare point of view, we thought it would be preferable for the facilities to be situated on the mainland. At Faslane at present there is only one football pitch. Plans to bring the provision of facilities up to the scale laid down for a unit the size of the Third Submarine Flotilla are being drawn up at the moment. There is no question of it waiting at the end of the queue. Canteen facilities are below standard and proposals for their improvement are in hand.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member in regard to golf. He and I are Scotsmen and that is our national game. This is a rather unusual point. I do not know whether we can do anything to help, but, if the hon. Member likes to write to me on the matter, I shall certainly look into it as sympathetically as I can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked about canteen costs. In running costs the service pays for itself, but there are some overheads borne on other Votes. Those overheads may create an overall deficit. The hon. Lady also raised a question on Subhead. H. She wondered why the amount there was up this year by approximately £4,000. The reason is that a grant of about £4,000 has been made to the Officers' Association for Employment to help officers during these difficult years when they are seeking to be resettled as a result of the "Axe".
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) raised two important questions about costs of travelling and telephones. Those are always very difficult matters to keep under control. Telephone charges have been increased, and that is one reason why this item has gone up, but we are seeking methods whereby we may make some economies. The higher travel rates are due largely to the dislocation caused by the reduction in the size of the Fleet, and also by increases in railway and air fares.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,521,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 13. Non-effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Steele: I wish to ask a question with reference to Vote 13 on the item which deals with gratuities, terminal grants, etc., on retirement. Provision is made this year for £4¾ million, whereas last year the amount was £1¼ million. I appreciate that no doubt provision is being made here for the retirements which will become effective as outlined in Command Paper 321. The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to say whether this is just the first stage in the retirements, and what that stage comprises. Will the next year see its finish? How much more will be expected? How much more money will be expected to meet the requirement under Command Paper 321? Can the hon. Gentleman give any information about what is happening?
In the debate on the Navy Estimates and up to the present nothing has been said about Command Paper 321 and how this is working out. I do not think any hon. Member, on either side of the Committee, has had any complaint about the provisions which have been made. It would be useful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what is happening and what stage the operation has reached.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. R. Allan: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked about gratuities and quoted an amount of £4¾ million, which is almost exactly the same as the amount which is going in gratuities; but over and above that, although in the 1957–58 Estimates we did not make provision because we did not know what would be needed, in the Supplementary Estimate we asked for another £4·2 million. Up-to-date £5·2 million has been spent on gratuities. In the run-down scheme, by the end of the month, 300 officers and 500 ratings will have left the Service, and by the end of 1958 another 550 officers and 500 ratings will go. That means that by the end of this year all the ratings who are to go under the premature retirement scheme


will have gone; but not all the officers will have gone. There will be about 1,000 officers still to go, because premature retirements bear more heavily on officers than on ratings. It will be spread over the next five years. We hope it will be a continuous process, although, unfortunately, it is not possible to give dates. Apart from the figures I have mentioned, we shall probably ask for about £10 million to cover all the final requirements.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

VOTE 14. MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 15. Additional Married Quarters

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quaters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

6.0 p.m.

Miss Vickers: I want to ask a question which arises from page 216, Subhead A. I notice that there has been a decrease of £1 million in the provision for new married quarters. There may be a simple explanation of this, but I should like to know whether we shall be able to build the programme which we had expected to build.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not want to detain the Committee because I realise that we are going over time, but the more I think of it the more I realise that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made an extremely important statement of policy earlier today in connection with Vote 1 when he suggested that the married quarters now at Chatham would continue to be used by the Navy

notwithstanding the fact that there may come a time when no naval personnel are there.
Hitherto, married quarters have always been intended to provide furnished accommodation for officers and men in the vicinity of their place of work. I am not asking for an answer to the question now because I realise that it affects all three Services and raises a big issue of policy, but if there is to be a change of policy I think the Committee should have an opportunity to debate it. I see that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is here. I very much prefer a modification on the line which he suggested the other day when winding up a debate on the Army Estimates in the early hours of the morning. I make the point because I do not think this change should pass without attention being drawn to it.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The main reason that the amount of money is less is that some of the programme had to be delayed in the Chatham area because we were not certain whether the establishments at Chatham would continue. We shall be able to use the loan, because I think there is an intention to have a new loan and that one will run into the other. No money will be wasted.
I will certainly note the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it. We realise that this is a great change, if it takes place. At the moment it is merely a possibility in the mind of the Admiralty and nothing has been decided.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Schedule


——
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
Cr. 450,000
100,000


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
1,025,000
*-425,000


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
300,000
—


6. Scientific Services
Cr. 400,000
250,000


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, &amp;c.—




Section I—Personnel
1,625,000
250,000


Section II—Matériel
11,000,000
*-5,400,000


Section III—Contract Work
19,500,000
*-4,000,000


9. Naval Armaments
Cr. 100,000
*-175,000


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
Cr. 1,750,000
450,000


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,150,000
*-550,000


12. Admiralty Office
300,000
—


13. Non-Effective Services
2,800,000
—


Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1957–58.£
35,000,000
*-9,500,000


* Deficit.

ARMY ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Army

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: We thank those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate on the Navy Estimates for being so accurate with the time. They agreed to finish at six o'clock and they kept their word.
I want, first, to draw the Under-Secretary of State's attention to what we think is an important difference between

the way in which the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates are presented. In the Air Estimates the figures are broken down much better than in the Army Estimates, and this makes it possible for us to obtain information by reading instead of by asking questions. Two of the questions which I shall ask need not have been asked if the Estimates had been presented in the same fashion as the Air Estimates. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look again at the manner of presentation of these Estimates?
The reference on page 24, for example, dealing with education allowances, simply states that for the year 1958–59 a sum of £280,000 will be provided for education allowances. How much is for officers and how much is for men? That information is given in the Air Estimates but not in the Army Estimates.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in the debate on the Army Estimates last week I raised the question of secondary education and reminded him that last year the Secretary of State, in his own Memorandum, stated that he was most unhappy about the position of secondary education in the armed forces and that he was calling for a special report. There is no mention of it in the Memorandum this year and there is no comment in any of the Explanatory Notes in the Army Estimates. Will the hon. Member let us know something about it? What happened to the report, if there was one, and what improvement has been made, if any?
We should like some assurances from the Minister about the National Service grants mentioned on page 20. An additional amount of £1 million is shown as expected to be required under this Subhead for 1958–59. Could the Under-Secretary of State give us an assurance that every effort is made to let men in the Army know that these grants are available? As Members of Parliament, we have wives of Regular soldiers and National Service men coming to us and putting to us their financial problems as a consequence of their husbands having been called-up. They ask for our help. No doubt, the War Office could confirm what I am saying from the large number of letters which hon. Members send to the War Office on this matter. We agree that the grant is a very important part


of the financial assistance, and on behalf of my colleagues I wish to know whether the Minister is satisfied that we are doing all that we can to let men know that these grants are available. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
On page 24 we see an estimated increase of nearly £1 million which the soldier has to find for National Insurance contributions for the year 1958–59. This is a direct result of Government policy. It is true that soldiers do not pay the full rate paid by civilians because they do not get all the benefits which civilians get; for instance, they do not get the sickness and unemployment benefit, although no doubt some of them would like to get the unemployment benefit. Similarly, the Industrial Injuries Act does not apply. Nevertheless, an extra £1 million is to be paid by Army personnel in these contributions.
I make a point which is similar to that which I made in the debate last week and with which I do not expect the Under-Secretary of State to agree: I yearn for the day when we have a Labour Government which will introduce their own national superannuation proposals, because we shall then be able to say that in insurance soldiers will pay on the basis of what they earn, unlike the present position when the private pays the same rate as the R.S.M. That is not fair, and it is an anomaly. Our proposals will mean that soldiers will pay in accordance with what they earn, and when they leave the Army at the end of their service they will carry pension rights with them under the scheme, which is very important when they return to civilian life.
Pay is an all-important issue. I have said previously, and I repeat, that the global sum which the Army has given in increases is generous. We do not deny that, and on this side of the House we welcome it. Nevertheless, we believe that the way in which these increases have been distributed has created many anomalies, and I want to put a series of questions to the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he can give me all the answers, although I have a shrewd suspicion that he will not be able to do so.
One of the difficulties is that married Regular soldiers living in married quarters have had their rents increased

considerably and in many cases, we understand, they have received no net increase in pay at all. They have received no over-all increase because their rents have risen so steeply.
What we want to know from the Under-Secretary is more about how much these rents have gone up for married quarters; whether, in fact, the rents for good quarters have gone up as much as those for bad quarters; whether or not any special privilege has been given to men whose wives and families are still living in very inadequate quarters, whether their rent has gone up, and by how much.
The Under-Secretary himself said in reply to me in the debate last week that the reason why the rent has been put up is that it is in accordance with the Rent Act policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is bad enough to apply that to civilians, without inflicting it on the poor soldier. The Government have missed a great opportunity in the distribution of this very large global sum by creating these extra anomalies. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us more about these rents, by how much they have gone up, whether there is any discrimination between bad quarters and good quarters, and so on.
I want to ask also about the hiring of civilian homes. I understand that civilian homes are taken over by the Army and let to serving soldiers, and I assume from that that the rents are paid by the Army to the landlords. Have the rents for these homes gone up, and, if they have, who gets the increase? Is it the landlord? If so, how much is involved and what was the yardstick used in putting the rent up? Was it, as for civilians, the gross rateable value or the net rateable value? How much is involved, and why has the soldier, who, after all, is doing a good job of work for his country, to be afflicted by this particular anomaly, which is creating, I understand, a great deal of trouble throughout the Services?
On page 24 reference is made to bounties. There is an increase for 1958–59, and in the Explanatory Notes it is stated that
the bounties for men are payable as soon as possible after the prolongation has been approved. Those for women are payable in instalments over the period of prolonged service


My simple question is, why? Why is there a difference for the women as opposed to the men in the payment of bounties?
Those are the main questions which I wish to ask on this Vote. Let me end my short remarks by saying this. It seems to me that in the sort of debate which we have on the Estimates we are the watchdogs in Parliament for the personnel in the Army. We take up the individual complaints and the moans and groans of the average soldier. Could we not achieve a position where we could have a far more democratic system within the Army itself, so that the men would be allowed to express their point of view, rather than relying on individual Members of Parliament to put that point of view forward?
We have often talked, sometimes in a rather glib way, about a democratic Army. I should like the Under-Secretary to deal with this point. Almost all the matters which I have been raising concern the private life of the soldier; they are the sort of things about which civilians can make representations through their organisations. The soldier is denied that right. I am very glad to see that the Secretary of State is here and that he has recovered from his attack of influenza. There is no reason why there should not be far more joint consultation between the men themselves and their officers, and at those meetings there should be high ranking officers who would listen to the men and who would understand their point of view and report it back to the War Office, so as to give the men the feeling that they are more than numbers in a unit. I ask the Under-Secretary to say that at least he is interested in this point, and we should like to hear any views which he may have about how to make the British Army more democratic than it is.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: It appears from the state of the Committee at the moment that all the questions will be asked from this side, and we hope that answers will be given by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary. We are dealing now with the largest single Estimate in the Army Estimates—something approaching £100 million. In any circumstances, that is a good deal of money, but it is in my view only a reflection of

the value we put on our fellow citizens who for a good part of their lives surrender their normal liberties to serve in the forces, and in the Army in particular, in order to defend the rest of us.
In my view, therefore, we have a special duty to see that the authorities behave as model employers towards these men, who have not in many respects the normal civic rights which we enjoy, to make their grievances known and seek remedies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I would say that we certainly do not begrudge the money which is being spent to improve the pay and conditions of these men, who are our fellow citizens. I welcome this increase in pay, with certain qualifications and in particular the qualification which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in the original debate, concerning the position of National Service men.
I can well understand the preoccupation of the War Office with the future Army which they are planning to recruit, an all-Regular force; but they must not forget—and it seems to me that they have had a tendency at times to forget—that for the next four years at least there will be a considerable number of National Service men still in the forces, and perhaps the overwhelming number of them living on pay which is quite outrageous.
We are expecting National Service men to exist in the forces on a rate of pay which has been increased only once, I believe, and now stands at 31s. 6d. How on earth can we sleep peacefully at nights knowing that these men have to live on a basic rate of 31s. 6d. for perhaps the major part of the two years for which they serve? I think that we ought to pay far more attention to this than we have done hitherto. There has been only one rise in pay since 1946 for this section of the Army, and that was 6d. a day. There is no other section of the community which has been so hard done by in respect of pay.
We must also remember that the National Service man now being called up is, more and more, the deferred man, over 21 years of age, who has perhaps had a fairly reasonable standard of life before being called up, and who therefore feels this difference all the more.


We must also bear in mind that the reaction of the National Service man to the forces, the way he talks about them to his friends and family, is a major factor in recruitment for the all-Regular Army.
If the National Service man has a grievance and goes about expressing it, as he will, it percolates through to the whole community and brings the whole of the Armed Forces into disrepute. Therefore, although I accept the fact that we must have differentials in pay in order to attract people to serve for six years, nine years and so on, I feel that we have failed in our duty in letting this niggardly rate of pay for National Service men continue for so long.
It is become more and more invidious to have an armed Service consisting of first-class and second-class soldiers, judged by their rate of pay. They all use the same N.A.A.F.I. and recreational facilities generally, and the same "pub", if they go to one, but the Regular soldier is in a position to pay far more than his counterpart who is doing National Service. I believe that we have gone too far in these differentials.
We also have the position, as I understand it, that, for the first eighteen months, the National Service man does much the same job as the Regular recruit, but on something like one-third of his pay. We have to ask whether or not this is right. Cannot something be done, even at this stage, to improve the pay of the National Service man? Even at the end of his two years, and provided he has seven stars—how on earth anybody gets seven stars I do not know, and I should like some explanation of how one gets them, not what one does with them when one has them, the maximum pay which he will get is only £4 7s. 6d.
The National Service man has less leave than the Regular soldier, and he has fewer free travel warrants. I know from my own experience that, were it not for the fact that these men have mothers, fathers and other relatives who each week send them postal orders to help them out, they could not manage decently on their Army pay. Lots of them like to get home at week-ends if they can, but they have to use their own or their families' resources to do it, and

I believe that we are placing too great a burden on the National Service man than we should be doing.
One can make out a case, as the Under-Secretary did in winding up the other debate, that the differentials and the Regular Army of the future are what matter. That cannot be applied to the families of these men. There is at present a completely crazy set-up whereby the marriage allowance for a National Service man is very very much less than that for a Regular soldier, although it takes just as much to keep the wife and children of a National Service man as it does to keep those of the Regular soldier.
As I understand it, the allowance for the wife of a Regular not with her husband is £3 17s. a week, whereas that for the wife of the conscript, the National Service man, is basically £1 15s., and if over 21 £2 16s. Here we have the ridiculous idea in this modern age that at 21 one is entitled to more pay for a wife and family than if one is unfortunate enough to be married before the age of 21. That is an anomaly which ought to be swept away. I think we are in duty bound to make a level marriage allowance for the soldier's family, whether he is a Regular or a National Service man. The National Service man's family ought not to be penalised as at present.
Having regard to recruitment for the Regular Army in the long term, surely it is short-sighted policy on the part of the War Office to neglect the National Service man in this way. The War Office may say, "Well, we have got him. He has got to come for two years whether he likes it or not. He has no union to put forward a wage claim. At the end of two years he goes away and we shall not see him again. Therefore, we can treat him in this way." That is short-sighted, for the simple reason that the National Service man and his comments form the background in deciding someone else whether to join as a Regular or not.
Today, one of the most disturbing features about the period of National Service is the small number who, having done National Service, have decided to volunteer to carry on. One would have thought that a young lad, liking Army life, would be willing to carry on if the conditions were promising and good. Yet we find, particularly now that the three-year


arrangement has gone, that very few recruits come from the ranks of the National Service men, and I believe the War Office is wrong to have laid so much stress on and been so preoccupied with the future forces to the neglect of our current forces.
I turn from that to the pay of the Regular soldier himself. I have already said I thought it was a good thing that he should have had this increase, but although the War Office is giving a lot of extra money, that money is not likely to attract sufficient recruits in future to provide the all-Regular Army when they want it. What it will do is stop people leaving who otherwise might perhaps have left. Even so, I doubt whether the present rate will attract people from industry into the Army. When we bear in mind that we want people from industries with skills and crafts to do skilled jobs in the forces, we must consider a new approach. It is said that men in the Army are paid roughly the equivalent of what they would get in civilian life. I do not think that is enough. There are factors in Army life which need compensations. They are separated from their families, subject to rigid discipline; they have to go where they are allowed to go and not where they might want to go; even at mainline stations they are apt to be dogged by the Military Police, and so on. For this surrender of individual liberties and freedom, the members of the Armed Forces need more than the equivalent of what they would get in outside life.
A sergeant, perhaps the key man in the future Regular Army, will get £9 a week plus his allowances. In outside industry he would probably be a foreman or above, in a skilled trade, getting £15 a week, perhaps even more. A man of that sort will need some extra inducement to attract him to serve in the Regular Army.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman calculate these invisible assets? It is almost impossible. It is very hard to say whether a man in the Army is getting the equivalent of his counterpart in industry at £15 a week.

Mr. Chetwynd: Even if he is getting the same it does not affect my argument,

because my argument is that he ought to be getting more to compensate for the disadvantages he has to suffer.
Coming to the point my hon. Friend mentioned about the distribution of the increased pay, I have worked out some figures, and I calculate that roughly one-tenth of the personnel in the forces are officers and nine-tenths are other-ranks. Of this large sum of money, the one-tenth are getting over a quarter and the nine-tenths are getting the rest. That seems to me grossly disproportionate. The average pay of an officer—I admit it is only an average, and hon. Members can make what they will of it—is £840 a year, whereas the average pay of other-ranks is £215 a year. I therefore say that the distribution of this money is wrong, and that more ought to be given to the other-ranks, who are getting only three-quarters of it, and less to those in the higher brackets, who are getting a quarter.
How is the differential in pay between the six years and the nine years to work? I assume that a man signing on for six years gets the commensurate rate of pay, and another man signing on at the same time for nine years gets the difference What happens when a man who has signed on for nine years does not, for one reason or another, whether on compassionate release or on discharge, fulfil his engagement? Is there any provision for sorting that one out, or is it just a chance the War Office is taking? If the difference is so great, there is nothing to stop a man signing on for nine years and then perhaps finding some means of discharging his obligation during that period. It is something which I think the War Office will have to watch, because there are barrack-room lawyers who I am sure will be working these things out.
My hon. Friend also mentioned National Service grants, which are roughly £1 million. An increase of £300,000 reflects the increase in the cost of living which has taken place under this Government. My hon. Friend asked for publicity about it, but I want to know how many National Service men—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am very glad, Dr. King, that there are more hon. Members on parade today than there were yesterday, and that I am able to carry on with my speech.
I was speaking about National Service grants, and I was asking whether this £1 million-odd reflects an increase in the cost of living or a more generous approach to their award. Is consideration given to rent increases under the present Act when awarding them? Some people who have already got the grant are bound to be affected. In those cases, can a grant be increased to take into account the increase in rents? I know that there is divided responsibility here, because the work is done by the National Assistance Board, but I should like to know how many applications for grant have been made in a year, and how many rejected.
I turn to the education allowances. We all appreciate the value of these, particularly to the man serving overseas, for whom the education of his child is a major pre-occupation. If he knows that his child can get a good education despite he himself being posted here, there and everywhere, it helps him enormously in settling down to his Service life. But what happens when a soldier receiving a grant of this kind comes home? Does the grant continue? It must be remembered that, in education, one cannot chop and change. If a child is at school, he or she cannot just be taken away, and a parent is committed to the expense for the whole of the time. I should have thought that once a grant was made, it should be continued for the duration of the child's attendance at school.
We should also know what kind of schools these children attend, and whether or not we are paying too much without getting value for our money. How many children are involved? The amount being spent at present is very small, and only very few children can yet be affected but I should like to see more emphasis put on this aspect of Service conditions, because I believe it to be a key point in our getting the right kind of people into the forces.
I do not know, Dr. King, whether I can deal with the Appropriations in Aid amounting to £39 million for our troops

in Germany, but it appears that we will have time to have a word about that privately in a moment. In any case—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.34 p.m.

Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Overseas Service Act, 1958.
2. Overseas Resources Development Act, 1958.
3. Commonwealth Institute Act, 1958.
4. Recreational Charities Act, 1958.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Army

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: What with a count and a visit from Black Rod in the course of my speech, Sir Gordon, I think I have almost had the lot now, and I hope that nothing else will happen to prevent my bringing my contribution to a speedy conclusion. Incidentally, while referring to Black Rod, I should like to say that Black Rod in his other capacity as a very distinguished general is doing a wonderful job for the War Office in his television series for the B.B.C. I think he is probably doing as much for recruitment as everything else put together.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is a great discourtesy that only half a


dozen Members should be here when this distinguished officer approaches to carry out his duties?

Mr. Chetwynd: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did his best to prevent him coming, so I am not at all sure whether he should make that point.
Dealing with the expected contribution towards the upkeep of our forces in Germany—the £39 million—we all know that this is a highly problematical figure. Discussions have been going on for a considerable time, and it looks as if this sum will not be forthcoming, at least in this form. Will the Minister tell us, in amplification of what is said in the Defence White Paper, how our troops will be affected, in numbers and organisation, in the event of our not receiving the whole of the £39 million? My own position is quite clear. I think that we should say definitely to the Germans that, unless they pay this contribution, we shall reluctantly be compelled to reorganise and withdraw part of our forces.
There is an item in the Vote under discussion for the upkeep of clothing, which I take to mean Service clothing. I suggest to the Minister that most troops, according to my knowledge, like to get into civilian dress once they are off duty. Some men go to considerable expense to acquire for themselves decent civilian dress, and I should have thought that, instead of money being wasted on Service dress for walking out, a clothing allowance should be paid. I know that walking-out dress may have appealed in the nineteenth century or even later, but, though I hate to say this to the traditionalists, I do not think that it has that appeal now. Men like to get out of the barracks, when off duty, wearing decent civilian dress. If money were spent on a clothing allowance to permit a soldier to buy a good civilian suit, it would pay dividends, I am sure.
It is very difficult indeed to find out from the Vote how much money is coming to the Army from discharge by purchase. It must be a very small amount, because the whole total is only about £150,000. A point which has struck me in my constituency correspondence is that it is very much more difficult in the Army for a man to buy his discharge than it is in either the Royal Air Force or the Navy. I wonder whether

different principles apply to discharge by purchase. I hope that we can have some statement of what the policy will be in this respect, whether the price of discharge by purchase is to be put up or whether a more generous approach is to be shown.
We are dealing here with the pay of the Army, and I want finally to refer to the actual procedure by which the individual soldier receives his pay. It is on many occasions little more than a survival from mediaeval times, a soldier having to go up and salute, put his hand out, get his pay, salute, turn round and go away with it. In industry, on the other hand, the money is given to a man quietly and privately in a sealed envelope or in a tin. I know that this sort of procedure is adopted in some units, but I feel that we ought generally to abolish the pay parade, with the red tape which goes with it, and pay soldiers in a civilised way, very much as civilians are paid. I feel that that is a suggestion worth while considering, and it meets a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey in the main debate last week.
These people in the Army are in reality civilians who are for a time serving their country in their chosen way. I am sure that they will be happier and more contented if we can relate their conditions of work and service more to the civilian world of their friends from which they have been taken.
I hope that my plea tonight has not been regarded in any way as an attempt to be awkward, because it is not meant to be. It is meant to help the Service to get the men and conditions that it wants. There are a number of matters that I have raised that need attention, and I hope that we shall get a full statement about them from the Under-Secretary.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to emphasise what my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) have said. I want to say a word of, welcome to the hon. Member for Bermondsey, who has acquitted himself very ably in his first appearance in the front line. Although he and I very often disagree, I am sure that it is very


appropriate that somebody who has been through the mill of the Army should put the point of view of the serving soldier.
I would like to emphasise what he has said about the need for consultation, as far as possible, between the ranks and the officers, and to say that in these days, when so much of these Estimates consists of what is largely civilianised expenditure or National Insurance and pay, there should be an opportunity for the serving men to be organised, perhaps, in consultative committees—although I prefer the expression "trade unions"—in such a way that the officers have a clear understanding of what are the grievances. If this were done, much time of hon. Members devoted to fighting individual cases would be saved.
I believe that some of the officers employed at the War Office are supervising the publicity for recruiting. Last year I drew the attention of the House to this recruiting activity, and I should like to do so again. There are officers working with the Central Office of Information whose activities I cannot discuss on this Vote, but there is a link between the War Office and the Publicity Department, because it is in this Vote. Therefore, I wish to emphasise what I have said on previous occasions—that there should be efficient supervision of these activities so that the War Office and recruiting officers do not make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the general public. If it is to be a modern Army, then the appeal should be made in terms of modern life.
I have here an advertisement from the Manchester Guardian of Friday, 21st February of this year in which a page is devoted to an appeal for officers of the Queen. The first picture is of a captain of the Honourable Artillery Company in the days of Queen Elizabeth. This is a very impressive picture of a gentleman—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think he is now referring to Vote 9.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Sir Gordon. I will return to that matter when we discuss Vote 9.

6.55 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to ask his right hon. Friend to look into the question of the education of serving men's children in this country. I have been reading the debate that we had in 1955. The year before that, I had the good fortune to raise the matter on an intervening Motion in the Army Estimates. As a result of that debate and my intervening Motion, a Departmental Committee was set up between the Ministry of Education and my hon. Friend's Department to make recommendations. As far as I am aware, their recommendations were wholly accepted.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh), who was then Minister of Education, was moving in the right direction, and in the direction that we all desired. Unfortunately, there was a change at the Ministry of Education and the Minister who took the right hon. Lady's place did not see the matter in her light at all, or, for that matter, in the light of those of us who had been advocating a change in this matter. We failed to get what we wanted for the families of serving officers and men at home, but succeeded in getting the allowances that we needed and arrangements required for the families of men serving abroad.
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the reason lying behind this failure. It is the old, old story. Whatever happens in the Services in England must accord with the regulations for the serving soldier. Many times my hon. Friends have tried to propound the difference between the life of a serving soldier, sailor or airman, and the civil servant, who locks the door at a specific time at night, goes home to his family and does not have the disturbance of serving men, and knows perfectly well that, provided he does not make any mistakes, he will retire on a fairly handsome pension at a certain age. There is no comparison between the two cases. My right hon. Friend should look into this matter again, because there is hardship. One of the things that prevented men from joining the Services was the fact that their children would not get the education received by children in civilian life.
I think that this matter comes under this Vote. I ask my right hon. Friend to see if something can be done about the extraordinary discrepancy in the treatment of families of serving men between different local authorities. The disparity of treatment is fantastic in various local authorities. I know one local authority that has, quite rightly—I do not suggest that it is wrong—a means test to decide whether or not people should get a local authority grant for children if they are in the care of guardians, or something like that.
On going into this question of the means test, I discovered that a local authority would compare the standard and cost of living of an officer's family with that of people living in the area of that local authority, and would say that the officer received so much pay and, therefore, possibly came outside the limit of the means test, forgetting that the cost of living for that family, perhaps in Singapore or Hong Kong, was completely different and could not conceivably be compared with the cost of living of a person living in that local authority area. I do not want to go into those debates again, but I ask my hon. Friend to remind his Department of the details of the debates in 1954 and 1955 to see if he can do something for the children of serving men living in England.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: I will try to be very brief, because we do not want to trespass on the time of the Royal Air Force. The Royal Navy was good enough to be punctual with us, and we should try, therefore, to conclude our debate within the hour.
I want to reinforce the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) about education. In my experience it is very important among the problems of serving officers and men alike. At present it is a lucky bag. Some people do very well and have very good educational facilities, for example in Germany—unless the very good schools there are full—while others have very great difficulty. I reinforce the hon. and gallant Member's plea.
I also want to reinforce the view expressed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), who said that the differential

between the Regular and the National Service man is becoming very wide indeed. We all understand it and recognise that it is part of the decision to taper off the system of National Service, but it is becoming almost indefensible, particularly in the allowances. As my hon. Friend so clearly said, the dependant of a National Service man is just as much in need as the dependant of a Regular. This is a point which should be looked at again.
We welcome very much the new pay and allowances, but I should like to put a point to the Secretary of State, not necessarily of criticism. I ask him to look where he is going in this. In many cases—it differs with the number of stars—out of a total income of over £11 a week which the private soldier will get, no less than £4 a week will be in the form of allowances if the man is married. There will, therefore, be a very wide differential between two men doing exactly the same job and having exactly the same qualifications, but one being married and the other not married.
That may be right, but we must bear in mind that no other employer does anything of the kind. There is nothing like that differential in any other circumstance. There are special reasons why in the Army part of the total remuneration ought to be in marriage allowances, but the width of the differential as it will become under the new pay scale needs watching. I do not necessarily ask for comment on it tonight, but it is worth bearing in mind in coming years.
The Secretary of State has stressed the difficulties of recruiting for the non-teeth arms. It is obvious that that is not going as well as recruiting for the teeth arms. I should like to know how much it would cost if the very drastic step were taken of bringing the pay of the W.R.A.C. up to the same level as that of the men's Forces. I am not necessarily advocating this but a good many of these non-teeth jobs—by no means all—can be done by women. Many of the clerical jobs can be done by them. If the cost did not prove prohibitive, there is something to be said for such a step. I am not suggesting it on the ground of principle, of equal pay for equal work, but simply as a way of getting the jobs done. The Government have moved in that direction in the new pay scales, because the


women's pay has been raised considerably, but if this turns out to be one of the main recruiting difficulties in the long run, there is something to be said for going in the direction of equal pay between the sexes.
The question of overseas' allowance is a hardy annual. I was in trouble about it when I was in office and other Secretaries of State are likely to be in trouble about it. It is largely a question of name. As long as we call it an overseas allowance, people will always think that everybody overseas ought to get it. Either that ought to be so and there ought to be a small allowance for everybody overseas, or it ought to be re-named and given some such name as foreign cost-of-living allowance. Some such name would make it clear that it was an allowance given only in those cases where the cost of living in the station abroad was higher than at home. Until that is done it will remain one of the continual misunderstandings which are bound to crop up. It is a very small point, but it is curiously irritating to both the Secretary of State and men.
I turn to the question of the War Office establishment, on the same Vote. I take the point that during the transitional period of a profound reorganisation of the Army there is a very heavy burden on the War Office staff, both civil servant and military. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that the proportion of this staff should be higher. When the Army settles down in its new form of approximately 165,000 men, however, I think the target ought to be to bring the establishment down roughly in proportion—not necessarily exactly in proportion but roughly in proportion. We have the example of what the Secretary of State for Air is doing. He is appointing a committee to try to ensure that this is done. The Under-Secretary of State ought to give us an assurance that this point is being very carefully watched and that this is the target in the long run.
I strongly support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on the democratic institutions of the Army. I recognise that it is very largely a question of human relations and of the quality of the commanding officers—that is perhaps the biggest element—but machinery, too, can

be useful and can have a value. I do not want to make suggestions of particular kinds of machinery which might be useful, and I do not endorse the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I think that some kind of machinery might well be considered. It would help where informal human relations may not be as good as they can be.
With ideal commanding officers and company officers I do not think there is any problem, but we cannot achieve that in all units; we cannot expect every set of regimental officers to be as good as the best. I therefore support the plea that we should see whether some new machinery in that sphere is not valuable.

7.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): Both the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) stressed the importance of closer consultation between officers and other ranks and human relations in the Army. I can assure them that in this matter they are pushing at an open door. The other day my right hon. Friend announced the appointment of a Committee under General Whistler to inquire into problems of this kind.
I should like to add one point from my personal experience, short as it is. I have been deeply impressed and indeed surprised by the number of conversations and talks which take place informally between what might be called the top brass and other ranks. We have, too, carried out a whole series of Gallup polls—without rank or anything else influencing the answers—to obtain a pretty clear idea of what is in the soldier's mind at the present time.
In a sense this debate confirms how successfully the problem of human relations in the Army is being tackled. It has been a useful debate, and a number of interesting points have been raised. But it has shown, as did our debate last week, that there are no very significant aspects of human relations in the Army which are radically wrong. I know the Committee will be glad about that.

Mr. Mellish: We are concerned about the soldier expressing his point of view and the War Office not getting to know


about it. It was my experience that this never got beyond the company office level.

Mr. Amery: This has been improving steadily for a number of years. One feature of the attempt to put the Army on to an all-Regular basis is that many things have been looked into in the past twelve months which have not, perhaps, been looked into before. So whilst the situation has been improving steadily since the war, in the last year it has been improving more quickly still.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked whether we could in future present Vote 1 of our Estimates in a form more akin to that used by the Air Ministry. I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is any way in which we can give more information next year than hitherto. But there are two points I ought to make at this stage. It is true that the Air Ministry gives rather more information in Vote 1 than we do. But there is a special reason for this. As I understand it, the fighting strength of the Royal Air Force is predominantly expressed in terms of numbers of operational aircraft. These are not given in the Air Estimates.
The fighting strength of the Army on the other hand is largely expressed in terms of the strength of actual units on the ground. There would, of course, be security objections to disclosing these facts in an official publication or to giving indications from which these facts could be too easily deduced.
I do not say it is impossible to discover the strength of units from other sources of information. Indeed, on an earlier occasion, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) produced some interesting deductions from the results of inter-unit football. It is undesirable, however, to give the intelligence services of foreign powers official confirmation of information which they can only get in other ways.
The other point is purely practical. If we give too many details about minor allowances, the Army Estimates will run the risk of becoming a book of regulations and will be even more cumbersome for hon. Members than it is today.

Mr. Mellish: I do not want to overstate the case, but almost everything in

the Air Estimates is broken down between officers and men, such as National Insurance contributions, and so on. There is no secrecy about those. It does not matter if the enemy knows how much we pay in insurance.

Mr. Amery: As I said earlier, we will see if we can give more information next year and we will take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee asked what would be the cost of bringing the pay of the W.R.A.C. up to the level of male soldiers. The answer is that it would cost 15 per cent. more. It has been raised to 85 per cent. of the male rate of pay. The point is an interesting one, but the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to express an opinion on it now.
I come now to the question of educational allowances which was raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer). The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked for the breakdown as between officers and men. Very much the greater part of the Vote, £268,000 out of £280,000, goes to officers. Some £12,000 goes to other ranks. It is paid to help them with the secondary education, and, since this year, with the vocational and technical education of their children. It is given for children between the ages of 11 and 18 who are at boarding school or attending day school while in the care of a guardian other than a wife.
The War Department pays the gross fees less scholarships up to certain permitted levels. In the case of boarding schools these levels are £75 a year for the first child, £100 a year for the second and £125 a year for any others. It used to be £75 per child, each year, so there is a fairly sharp increase there.
For day schools it has gone up from £26 a year to £35 a year for each child. The allowances are paid for schools in the United Kingdom, with very few exceptions. For example, the children are sometimes allowed to go to foreign schools. Where there are Army schools, parents are expected to use them. The allowances for officers and other ranks are identical. The great difference between the proportions of the Vote


which go to officers and to other ranks is explained, so our experience has shown, by the fact that other ranks nearly always take their children overseas. If they do not, they leave them with their wives in this country. So in their case we do not get the same problem of the child left in a boarding school or attending a day school while in the care of a guardian, as appears to be more frequently the case with officers' children.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say the number of children involved?

Mr. Amery: I cannot say offhand. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can do the sum.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can I offer a figure of 16,000?

Mr. Amery: My hon. and gallant Friend has given his answer to the question. The hon. Member for Bermondsey also asked about secondary education. Secondary education is provided in all overseas commands where the local State system is considered inadequate. At present, the only State systems we regard as adequate are in Gibraltar and in the three East African Territories. The cost of educating secondary children under these systems is borne by the War Department.
Army secondary schools are in five categories. These are as follows. First, all-age schools—the greatest number—established in areas where there are not many children, and attended by secondary-modern ability children. Then there are secondary-modern schools, similar to those in this country. There are secondary schools which cater for both modern and grammar streams. There are also secondary grammar schools catering solely for grammar ability children. Finally, there are secondary comprehensive schools catering for all three streams, modern, grammar and technical. These are spread all over the world. I have the figures here but I will not weary the Committee by giving them all.
But there are, for example, 52 all-age schools in B.A.O.R., 11 in the Middle Eastern Command and four in the Far East. There are also a number of secondary schools in the Far East as well. We do co-operate with the other Services. For instance, in Malta Army secondary

school children attend schools administered by the Admiralty.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing spoke of the attitude of the local authorities. I welcomed his statement because it confirmed the view, shared by many of us in the Committee, that the future recruiting of the Army depends largely on the status which the community accords to the soldier. I think this is a matter where public opinion, led in many cases by Members of Parliament, can have a beneficial effect.
I have been asked about National Service grants, and the hon. Member for Bermondsey wondered whether it was realised to what extent they are available. Every precaution is taken to make sure that their existence is known, and I think it is the fact that year by year people get to know more about them. Knowledge does travel slowly in these matters, but the increase in the Vote in respect of National Service grants reflects the growing awareness of their existence.
Where National Insurance is concerned, the provisions are in line with the provisions in civilian life. It would be contrary to our practice in this country to discriminate. The War Department, like employers everywhere, pays its share of National Insurance contributions.
I was asked some questions about rents. To give an example of the present position, rents for other ranks have gone up in some cases to 28s. 6d. a week.

Mr. Mellish: What were they before?

Mr. Amery: They varied a certain amount, of course, but this particular figure has gone up from 21s.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Have there been any evictions?

Mr. Amery: No, there have been no evictions.
The increase in rents is balanced by the increase in marriage allowance. The increase in pay is, therefore, a net increase. The hon. Member for Bermondsey seemed to be worried lest the increase in rent should cancel out the increase in pay. But that is not the case at all. The increase in pay is a net benefit accruing to the officer or other rank. The increase in marriage allowance helps to balance, and in some cases more than balances, the increase in rent.
The rent paid to the landlord is, of course, a charge on the War Department. In some cases, these are contracts of long standing and cannot be terminated quickly. In other cases, they may be, terminated or we may enter into a new contract. We pay any difference, not the tenant. I think that covers the points which have been raised under that head.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey also asked me why the procedure for paying bounties to W.R.A.C. was different to that for men. Experience shows that W.R.A.C. have a tendency to leave the Army sooner because they marry. So, it is perhaps the right course to pay by instalments rather than in one lump sum.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) was a little disturbed about the way these bounties are paid, and I think he said that we must look into it.

Mr. Chetwynd: No, it was a question of the differential. I suggested that we might be paying a man the rate for nine years and he leaves after six years.

Mr. Amery: As the hon. Member knows, he cannot leave after six years, if he has signed on for nine, without first obtaining a discharge. In that case, the question of a refund could arise.
The hon. Member also raised the matter of an increase in National Service pay. There was an increase in 1956 and one before that in 1950. I am bound to say that I expressed my views on this in the debate the other night, and I was glad to find that on the whole, the hon. Member for Bermondsey, gave me his support. I do not think that in the present financial climate, there would be justification for this increase. National Service men do receive allowances, and there is the system of National Service grants to which I have already referred.
The hon. Member also spoke of support costs in Germany. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add to what I said the other day. The whole matter is under discussion in N.A.T.O. at the present time.
He also advocated that we should spend money on giving a civilian suit—

Mr. Chetwynd: No; not give the suit, but give the man the money with which to buy it.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is quite wrong if he thinks that the Army is not interested in a smarter uniform. It is. There was perhaps one point in his speech which was a little out of date. He said that the soldier is a civilian in uniform. That was absolutely true when we were thinking of a large conscript Army. Then men were being brought out of civilian life against their will to serve in the Army. But volunteers are joining the Army precisely because they want a different kind of life from civilian life. To such men a smart uniform has a very great appeal. I think we would be very ill advised to spend our money, at any rate at this stage, on better civilian clothing. First priority must be given to the demand for a smart uniform.

Mr. Mellish: That is quite right, but the man goes in the Forces full of keenness, and then he gets married, when the problem of the civilian aspect starts. We were trying to think about the civilian aspect of his life, and one encouragement would be to give him a civilian suit.

Mr. Amery: I do not say that there might not be a time when we could investigate that. But the first priority should be given to providing these men with a smart uniform.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West asked me about establishment of the War Office. This will of course take its cut before the re-organisation is through, and it will be a pretty severe one. But as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in the period till then the burden cast upon the War Office is greater than ever before. The whole period of re-organisation will be a difficult one. Thereafter the smaller the Army, the more important it will be to have really high-class Intelligence, really swift mobility and really good weapons. All these things call for a fairly strong administrative corps, and so impose a certain burden on the War Office.
I think I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I apologise to any hon. Members if I have not met their points. If there have been any omissions, I will try to correct them by


writing to the hon. Members in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £98,220,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 387,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 375,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 274,800, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Strachey rose—

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir Norman, to the inclement weather prevailing on the back benches behind me? There is a Force 5 gale blowing up there. Can you do anything about it?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): I will endeavour to help the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Strachey: I wish to ask one question on this Vote about the Mobile Defence Corps, which is part of the Army Emergency Reserve. I should like to hear a little about its present state. What is the present state of the first six battalions? To what extent is it a purely paper organisation? To what extent are there cadres of full-time serving soldiers? To what extent are National Service men being used in it? The great number, of course, are ex-National Service men, who are not, as I understand it, to do any part-time service. Therefore, it seems that it is a registry of names. I think the Committee will be interested to know about that.
Secondly, what is to happen to this corps after the abolition of National Service? Then, the great pool of ex-National Service men, which makes up its numbers today, will not be available. It will take some time, of course, but

after, let us say, 1965 or some date of that sort, they will be rapidly disappearing. What are the long-term plans for the Mobile Defence Corps? Is it that the Territorial Army will entirely undertake the civil defence functions of the Mobile Defence Corps, and will it be amalgamated with the Territorial Army? What are the long-term plans for it, because they will surely profoundly affect the abolition of National Service?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice that he would question me on the subject of the Mobile Defence Corps, and I must therefore apologise in advance if my reply is not as full, detailed and informative as he might wish.
Last year, we concentrated in the War Office on the reorganisation of the active Army and the Committee is familiar with the results of what we then did. We have now turned our thoughts more especially to the problem of the Reserve Army, but our studies on this matter are not yet complete. However, there are one or two things which I want to say about the Mobile Defence Corps, both about the main problem which it has to face and about its rôle.
Like the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve, the Mobile Defence Corps consists partly of volunteers and partly of National Service men. The National Service element is, of course, very much the larger proportion. With the ending of National Service, the Mobile Defence Corps will lose, as indeed the other two sections of the Reserve Army will lose, one means of replenishing its numbers and will then, therefore have to rely increasingly on a purely volunteer element.
The Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve have a long tradition, and their volunteer cadre is quite strong. The problem with the Mobile Defence Corps, this comparatively young organisation, is very much greater, and that has to be faced.
The rôle of the Mobile Defence Corps is the other matter to which I wish to refer. It is extremely difficult to envisage the shape of home defence if we should ever have the emergency of a global war, but two extreme aspects of the home defence problem can be discerned. On


the one side there would be active fighting—defence against invasion, against parachutists and saboteurs and the performance of garrison duties at ports and other essential installations. Those would be the natural rôle of the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve. At the other extreme there would be civil defence in its more localised form, that is to say, local elements carrying out rescue work in their own or neighbouring communities.
Between those two extremes, there would be many intermediate tasks. Some of those we can foresee and some we cannot, but it seems clear that there will be a need for mobile defence units which could be moved rapidly to emergency areas to reinforce the efforts of local organisations.
My conclusion, therefore, is that although the M.D.C. will face serious problems with manpower, its role is necessary to any adequate organisation of home defence. As I said earlier, however, we are not yet in a position to say how we hope to overcome the manpower shortage, nor to explain exactly the relationship which we foresee between the Territorial Army, the Mobile Defence Corps, and the civil defence organisations generally.

Mr. Mellish: I want to give the Under-Secretary a chance to say some nice things about Malta, whose Prime Minister, Mr. Dom Mintoff, is here negotiating with the Colonial Secretary on the problems of that great country. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary wants to say something about Malta's Territorial Force, which this Vote covers, and whether we have achieved the numbers we want.

Mr. Amery: I am very glad that the hon. Member has given me this opportunity. As he knows, I was a member of the Round Table Conference, and I have for many years been a personal friend of Mr. Mintoff, whose friendship I greatly value. I was in Malta last September, and I saw units of the Royal Malta Artillery and of the Territorial Force in Malta. They seemed to be in very good heart, and I am very glad of the opportunity to be able to pay tribute to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,990,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 387,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 375,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 274,800, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 8. Works, Buildings and Lands

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,830,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Strachey: I have two questions to put on this Vote. One is about the civilianisation of works and the civilianised directorate, which I welcome. That seems a good idea, but what occurs to me in this connection is the question of a "common user" with the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force has had this form of organisation—a civilianised works directorate—for many years and now that the two Services have the same form of organisation, there is a good deal to be said for a directorate to serve both. That would be a step towards integration and an economy at the top and it would be a common user service which would have very considerable advantages. I should like to know whether that has been considered and, if so, whether there are any great objections to it.
My second question concerns married quarters. In page 134 of the Estimates, there appear to be some disturbing figures about married quarters. The money which we are asked to vote this year is considerably less than that for last year. In round figures, the sum is down from £1,200,000 to £853,000. I realise that that is not the whole story and that the figure of £750,000 in Vote 11 is the same this year as last, but, therefore, that does not affect the comparison one way or the other. On the surface, at any rate, it seems that we are being asked to provide a very considerably smaller sum for married quarters this year than for last year, and that seems disturbing.
If we are to succeed in our recruiting drive, progress with married quarters is an important factor. I realise that it may be argued that the reduction in


numbers will reduce the need for new quarters, but that argument is specious. After all, although the reduction in numbers is very considerable, a considerably higher proportion will be in this country and the demand for married quarters in this country is not likely to diminish at anything like the same rate as the reduction in the numbers in the forces.
I am concerned and alarmed about this apparent drop in the sum voted. We are told that substantial new works are to start this year—£1,400,000—but the actual amount to be spent this year is estimated to be less than that for last year and that is disturbing. The Army still seems to lag behind the Royal Air Force in the provision of married quarters and I should be grateful for reassurance on this topic.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. J. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we could have a common user service with the Royal Air Force. He will appreciate that I have not sufficient knowledge of the Royal Air Force to give an objective and balanced view on the matter. I doubt whether it would be possible or desirable to have as big an organisation as would be required to cater for the building needs of two Services. I suppose it should be spread. in the right hon. Gentleman's view, to all three Services. I do not know, but that is my first reaction.
I emphasise that a more fruitful line of progress may be that which we are adopting at the moment. There are certain theatres where one Service accepts responsibility for the building requirements of all three. For example, in Aden the greater part of our building is undertaken, in accordance with our requirements, by the R.A.F. organisation.

Mr. Strachey: As I understand it, almost all the physical work is being done by civilian contractors. I am referring merely to the question of the directorates who let the contracts. I should not have thought that the size of the matter was necessarily a prohibitive factor. It would be if the work were to be done by the Services, but in the matter

of letting contracts I should have thought that there would be an advantage.

Mr. Amery: This is hardly the occasion to debate the vexed problem of the optimum size of an organisation. I was merely giving my reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I believe that the present system, under which one Service often carries out the building requirements of all three, is progressive. It may be possible to develop it still further.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to married quarters and to what he regarded as the rather meagre provision that we are making for them in the year ahead. The real reason is that until the planning of the reorganisation of the Army is completed it is impossible to decide exactly where the married quarters should be built. From that point of view last year was a poor one. The whole problem was in a state of flux, and we were not in a position to say definitely where married quarters should be built. The position is improving this year and we shall build considerably more married quarters than we did last year. But the full results of present planning will not begin to take effect until 1959.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I should like to ask one question with regard to Subhead F, in page 140 of the Estimates. I did not give the Under-Secretary notice of this, and if he cannot answer I shall understand. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for War is present. I repeat what I said last week. We should have another look at the question of accommodation. We are spending millions of pounds upon improving married quarters, and I appreciate that; but since we are talking in terms of a much smaller Army hon. Members on this side of the Committee believe that if we could give the men the chance to buy their own homes through the Army, with 100 per cent. loans and cheap, fixed interest rates, it would help recruiting.
Subhead F refers to the repayment and interest charges under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts. I may be wrong about this, but is it not possible within that Act for the Army to make these loans? I should imagine that there would be no greater advertisement for attracting young men into the Army than to say to them, "You will be given


an opportunity to buy your home, where you want it, with a 100 per cent. loan and low fixed interest charges." I believe that that attitude would do much good.

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Member will understand if I do not give any answer to his question at present, but I do not think that I shall be revealing any official secret if I say that what he mentioned in the debate last week was the subject of a discussion in which I took part in the War Office today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,830,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to ask some questions concerning the expenditure on publicity and the recruiting services. I should like to know what supervision the War Office exercises and what consultation it has with the Central Office of Information upon the general question of Press advertising. I know that the big sum is paid for by the Central Office of Information, but there must be somebody at the War Office who acts as a liaison, and in an advisory capacity, on the whole question of recruiting.
I want to know whether there is sufficient supervision to make sure that the money we are spending on this recruiting service is justified. I cannot understand why, on Friday, 21st February, 1958, there appeared in the Manchester Guardian a whole page advertisement appealing for officers of the Queen. I can understand the necessity for recruiting, but I cannot understand what sort of appeal the advertisement made. Last year I raised a question on the same Vote, when an advertisement had

appeared showing a huge picture of the explosion of an atomic or hydrogen bomb. I wondered how many recruits that would bring in. I do not know how many it brought in, but it seemed a very curious sort of publicity for attracting recruits.
The War Office now seem to have gone from ultra-modern times back into the past. I do not know whether my remarks last year had any influence, but the War Office has gone back at least a couple of centuries. The advertisement consists of four pictures, which were supposed to attract recruits. The first shows a captain of the Honourable Artillery Company in the days of Queen Elizabeth I, dressed in the curious costume of that time, the most conspicuous feature being what, in Victorian times, were called bloomers. He is shown armed with a pike. I do not see how the normal young reader of the Manchester Guardian could be attracted to join the Army by contemplating that picture.
The next picture shows a grenadier officer of Queen Anne's time, dressed like the advertisements we used to see on packets of Quaker Oats. Hon. Members have often appealed for an attractive walking-out dress, but if any potential recruit thought that this was to be the walking-out dress of the British Army he would be driven away.
The third picture is of a Hussar colonel in Queen Victoria's Army, mounted upon a ferocious horse. I thought that the cavalry were obsolete, but anyone looking at the advertisement would imagine that a young recruit would be able to ride about the country on a horse.
Then comes the hors d'œuvres. The fourth picture shows a young Royal Armoured Corps subaltern in the British Regular Army. That was the nearest approach to modern times that the advertisement reached. It is an impressive picture of a young soldier in a tank which, I understand, was obsolete about five years ago.
All this led up to an invitation to the potential recruit to write to the War Office and ask for a special form PA. 6 b, which would give him further particulars. I am a great supporter of the Manchester Guardian and I do not mind it receiving advertising revenue, but I also have a duty to scrutinise War Office expenditure, and I fail to see how this advertisement


serves the War Office. The explanation might be that the War Office thinks so much of the Manchester Guardian that it wants to subsidise it, but I cannot see the purpose of the advertisement if it is intended to attract recruits. Potential officers, presumably, are advised to join the Regular Army and the field for the Regular Army recruiting appears to be the Manchester Guardian.
There has been another advertisement in the Daily Express, not for officers but for soldiers of the Queen. Officers read the Manchester Guardian and soldiers read the Daily Express. I do not know whether the authorities have been optimistic or hopeful enough to advertise in the Daily Worker; but in the Daily Express there is a different kind of appeal. The picture of the obsolete tank is still there but underneath it there is a picture of a facsimile letter. I will let the hon. Gentleman have my copy afterwards. I was hoping that he reads the Daily Express. I will lend my copy to him and he may come to the same conclusion as I have. We differ fundamentally over many things, but I feel sure that he will be in agreement with me about this.
Here is a facsimile letter supposed to have been sent home by a soldier serving somewhere. It does not say exactly where and only page three of the letter appears. I wonder whether the War Office will make some inquiry to find out whether this is a bona fide letter, or just a fake. I have the impression—I may be wrong, it may be my suspicious mind—that this is a fake. The letter begins as if it is a continuation from page two. But neither page two nor page one appears, and so I do not know what is said on them. No name is given, neither does the name of the recipient of the letter appear, but only page three, where it states:
keep pretty fit as you can see from the sailing club. We are down at the sailing club most weekends"—
I am not sure whether this is an advertisement for the Army or the Navy, or whether they have got mixed up; or whether there is not sufficient co-ordination, and the publicity of the Navy has got mixed up in the Central Office of Information with the publicity for the Army.
The other bloke is Pete Roberts, my gunner/op".

Then the letter continues with this rather curious statement:
Life is pretty good out here and you sure get a lot more excitement and fun than ever I found in civvy street".

Mr. Chetwynd: Or in the House of Commons.

Mr. Hughes: The House of Commons would be a poor advertisement for recruiting. We have been discussing these Estimates with only twenty hon. Members in the Chamber. The last thing hon. Members would like would be a recruiting poster comprising a picture of the House of Commons discussing the Army Estimates.
There must be a limit to the credulity of our young people. After all, they are fairly intelligent these days, and as we learn from debates in the House, the impression created in this advertisement is not the general experience of National Service men. If life in the Army is more exciting, and people get more fun there than in civilian life, the National Service men who have been in the Army should be its best recruiting officers.
I do not know how much was spent on the advertisement in the Daily Express. The Daily Express is, after all, a democratic paper and must have some kind of popular appeal, but next year, if the Under-Secretary of State for War is still in the same office, I should like him to remember my remarks and try to find out how many recruits were obtained as a result of the advertisements in these different papers. I think that intelligent young men are being asked to believe a little too much.
I pass from Press publicity to ask a question about whether the War Office has any intention of reviving the old kind of recruiting campaign.

Mr. Mellish: May I ask my hon. Friend—I am sure he will understand—to bear in mind that it is the intention to discuss the Air Estimates at eight o'clock. I am sure that he will want to talk about the Air Estimates as well.

Mr. Hughes: That is certainly an incentive to me to finish my speech and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will finish before eight o'clock. If the Minister does not wish to encroach on the trine to be devoted to the Air Estimates, he can reply to me in writing; if he does


so I shall get more information then ever he gave me in a speech. I do not wish to offend against the conventions, but I shall finish in five minutes although, after all, a few seconds either way does not matter very much when we are spending £500 million.
I wish to ask the Minister about the old-fashioned recruiting campaigns which used to be conducted in the time of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am surprised that he is not here. When he was Secretary of State he started organising recruiting campaigns which were not very successful. I remember that he went on one famous recruiting expedition which cost the War Office £40 and he brought back three A.T.S. recruits. They got married shortly afterwards and so he lost them. The right hon. Gentleman is regarded as a most patriotic Member on this side of the Committee—a man with a great demagogic appeal. Why not utilise his services again. I am sure that were he sent to Glasgow to appeal to the students of Glasgow University, and faced the barrage of opposition which he would get from the students, that would be a good try-out for the recruiting campaign. I throw that out as a suggestion, although I do not ask him to invite me to take part in such a campaign.
In my part of the world recruiting has almost ceased and yet considerable amounts of money are being spent in Scotland with very meagre results. There has been a controversy between the H.L.I. and the R.S.F. over the question of amalgamating the two regiments. During that controversy we were told that the kilt had a great appeal and that if we put soldiers in the kilt, they would rush to join the Army. But kilted regiments, like the Black Watch and the Gordon Highlanders, are not getting results either, and I wish to know what sort of recruiting initiative is contemplated for the West of Scotland. The latest figures referring to Glasgow show that the H.L.I. gets six recruits a month or one-and-a-half a week, and the figures for other regiments are about the same. I should like to know whether this considerable expenditure on recruiting in Scotland is justified at the present time.
I do not know the answer, but I suggest that the most successful slogan for

recruiting was given last year by Lord Montgomery when he said that the Army will be the safest place in the next war. A good recruiting campaign could be built up on that, although nothing is said about what will happen to the wives and children of the soldiers. I have kept my promise and I am finishing my speech before eight o'clock. I am prepared to give the extra minute to the Air Force. I do not ask the Minister to reply to me now, but if he will send me a written answer I shall be obliged.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has made a speech which I thoroughly enjoyed, I cannot agree with his approach, and I am sure that he would not expect me to. Of course, we have a say in the organisation of publicity and its administration and we act in close co-operation with the Central Office of Information.
The hon. Member is quite wrong in discounting the strength of the historical appeal in matters of advertising. The hon. Gentleman knows very little of his own countrymen if he does not realise how often their imaginations have been moved by precisely the kind of appeal which these two advertisements contain.
One of our great difficulties has been to recruit the necessary number of young officers. One of the reasons why that is more difficult to do than it has been in the past is that so many elements in our national life, like the hon. Member, have denigrated the appeals of loyalty to Queen, country, Empire and Commonwealth, which have in the past played a very great part in getting young men to dedicate and devote their lives to service in the Armed Forces.
I rather agree that the Manchester Guardian is an unusual organ to choose for this type of appeal, but the advertisement itself seems excellent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Recruiting figures have gone up and are increasing, not only south but north of the Border. I do not believe that the hon. Member's efforts will be able to interrupt that progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a


grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

Vote 10. Non-effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £34,470,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I apologise for taking time from the Air Estimates but I intend to raise the question of compensation paid to officers and other ranks who are compulsorily retired.
From the information that I have, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has treated officers generously, and where there has been a doubt he has decided in favour of giving compensation to officers and other ranks. I am raising the question of a certain number—I believe it is only a small number—of officers who have been retired under Section 196 of the Pay Warrant, 1950. This section says:
General rule: Any officer may at any time be called upon by the Army Council to retire or resign his commission for reasons other than misconduct.
Paragraph 198, is worded exactly the same, except that it says that he can be called upon to resign for misconduct.
The question I want to ask is, how many officers have been retired under this section during the last 12 months? What is the average number that has been asked to retire in the previous 10 years? We have to consider whether these officers are redundant or not. That is a most important question.
I can give as an example particulars of an officer who is being told to retire under this section. I will not name the officer, because although the wording of the pay code is so designed that there is no stigma against such an officer being retired under that section, to give his name might make it more difficult for him to obtain employment. My hon. Friend knows the name of the officer and all the details. I will give an outline of the case to the Committee.
This officer has been 19 years in the Territorial Army and the Regular Army. He started off in the ranks and he has

17 qualifying years for pension. Of course, he would have qualified for pension after 20 years. He won the Sword of Honour in his officer-cadet training unit. He won the Military Cross. He was twice wounded and he served as a temporary major and a squadron leader in an armoured regiment. All his last three commanding officers particularly recommended promotion to the rank of major.
I have an extract from the confidential report about him. I give it by way of example of the officers retired under this section. I will not read the whole of it. This confidential report says:
He is a very hard working, thorough officer, who gets on with his job quietly and efficiently … He has good military knowledge and a wide experience, and is, in my opinion, a thoroughly competent practical officer. His one failing has been his inability to pass his promotion examination in military law.
There is nothing detrimental in the remainder of the report, which concludes:
I have no hestitation in saying that as a C.O. I would be delighted to have this officer in my regiment as a Squadron Leader, with the knowledge that he would not let me down, but would do his work loyally, competently and with efficiency.
His grading is given as
above the standard of his rank and service.
In answer to the question "Fit now for promotion?" the answer is "Yes", to the next substantive rank. The report goes on to recommend that in the event of war he be commanding officer of an armoured car regiment.
This officer was retired, to the best of my knowledge, on the ground that he has been unable to pass his promotion examination in one subject only. The penalty that he suffers for that is not only what one expects, that he does not get promotion to the next rank; he also loses his pension, which he would have had, had he been allowed to stay on for the next two and a half years. Instead of receiving pension, he receives a terminal grant of £2,400 for 17 years' service instead of a gratuity of £1,500 and a pension of £500 a year for life. I work that out as a capital sum, taking the value of his pension and gratuity together, of £10,000.
Alternatively, if he has been allowed compensation for redundency, as almost every other officer we have got rid of in the Service is being given, he would have received a capital grant now of


£6,400, plus pension of £470 per year for life. The whole of that is equal, in my calculation, to a capital sum of around £15,000. That is the effect of failing in one subject. This officer will be retired on a technicality and will suffer this penalty in addition to not getting his promotion.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may say that the officer should have passed the promotion examination. I accept that as perfectly fair, but we are not all capable of being experts in military law. There are plenty of other qualities which are necessary in an officer. As to whether he is being declared redundant or not, I think that will become evident when my hon. Friend is able to give the figures, which I hope he will give of the average number retired under Section 196 of the last ten years.
I should point out that in the White Paper on Compensation for Premature Retirement from the Armed Forces, paragraph 1 says:
Her Majesty's Government gave an assurance that fair compensation will be provided for those whose Service careers were prematurely terminated as a result of the planned reduction in the size of the armed forces.
I submit that these men are being retired as part of the planned reduction of the Armed Forces.
Another basic factor upon which compensation was to be given was:
the additional difficulties in finding employment in civil life.
That condition applies equally to these officers as to any others. I do not in any way dispute the decision of the Army Council in telling these officers to retire. It is entirely up to the Army Council to decide which officers it wishes to declare redundant. If it wishes to choose officers who are not good at military law, that is the decision of the Army Council.
I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this very small number of officers on their individual merits, and where the reason for compulsory retirement is purely technical, to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are going out at a time when alternative employment will not be easy to find. They will be competing with officers, possibly with less service than they have, who have been given the full benefit of compensation for permature retirement.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. J. Amery: I think I ought first to explain the rules by which we are guided in a matter of this kind, as a background to the particular case which my hon. Friend has explained to the Committee. Promotion examinations were reintroduced in 1950. It was then announced in Army Council Instructions, which have been repeated since, that if an officer failed to pass the examination his retention in the Service would be a matter to be considered by the Army Council.
It was also announced that these promotion examinations and the liability to be asked to retire from the Army in the event of failure would apply only to officers who reached the age of 30 on or after 1st January, 1950. The procedure we follow in practice to determine whether or not an officer should be retained is generally as follows. Every officer is given a second chance to pass the examination within a year. If he fails the second time, a commander, not below the rank of major general, is asked to recommend whether or not he should be given a third chance. That recommendation is then considered by a board in the War Office, which may grant an extra year to pass the examination, or submit the case to the Army Council. If it submits a case to the Army Council, the officer may make representations before a decision is taken.
In accordance with these rules and practice, a number of officers were retired in the period betwen 1950 and the announcement of the redundancy terms last year. Since the announcement of the redundancy terms, a further batch of officers have also been retired, of whom the officer referred to was one. My hon. Friend asked what the numbers were in either case. Nine officers were retired in the period between 1950 and the announcement of the redundancy terms and 18 have been retired since the redundancy terms were announced.

Mr. Sharples: Can my hon. Friend say if that is a total of nine in more than six years and of 18 in the last 12 months or so?

Mr. Amery: I was coming precisely to that point, because it was clear that my hon. Friend had that in mind when


he asked for the figures. On the face of it, my hon. Friend was quite entitled to draw the conclusion he has drawn. I have looked into the matter very carefully. I have had a long session on it today. I have come to the conclusion that it is not a direct consequence of the rundown of the Army. I say that on two grounds. The first is the general ground of the decision I have just described under which an officer was liable to be asked to retire from the Army if he had not passed the promotion examination, which did not begin to arise until about 1953 because we always give two years grace in these matters and the rule was introduced in 1950. It did not apply at all to officers over the age of 30. Therefore, it is only now beginning to apply to the main intake of Regular officers into the Army since the war.
In further substantiation of this point, of the 18 who have been retired since the redundancy terms were announced, very nearly half are in non-retirement categories. I think that shows that there is no direct connection between redundancy and the decision the Army Council has taken in this matter. As a matter of fact, the only change which has taken place in the last two months has been that the Army Council has decided in certain respects to make the rule slightly less stringent than it was in theory before—

Mr. Sharples: Not in practice.

Mr. Amery: —and it was becoming so in practice. That was one of the reasons why we came to the conclusion that the rule should not be too strictly interpreted.
I come to the case which my hon. Friend put forward. As he stated, that officer had a very fine military record. He became due for promotion on 7th November, 1955. He had twice sat the promotion examination and failed. He sat it again in 1955 and 1956 and failed on each occasion. His case was before the Army Council in 1957 when he sat the examination for the fifth time, and again failed to pass. He appealed to the Army Council against the decision that he should retire and the appeal was turned down. Whatever might be said of the category of officers to which my

hon. Friend referred, I think I can say with absolute certainty—or as much certainty as is possible in a matter of this kind—that this officer, who failed the promotion examination five times, would have been retired irrespective of the reorganisation of the Army.
The principles governing the retirement of officers who fail to pass the promotion examination were decided before the rundown of the Army had been considered at all. In certain respects, they have been made actually slightly more lenient since the decision of the rundown was reached. In particular, opportunities for a second and third chance can be given. This officer would have been retired whether or not the rundown had taken place. I do not think, therefore, he could be said to qualify for the redundancy terms.

8.19 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I apologise for intervening in this debate, but, having heard the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and the very unconvincing reply, I think this matter deserves the attention of the Committee.
This is the case of an officer with a brilliant record, decorated by Her Majesty with the Military Cross, wounded, recommended for promotion, but failed in one subject, and he was retired or thrown out on a relatively small gratuity with two-and-a-half years to go for his pension.
My experience, I am glad to say, is that this sort of treatment does not happen in industry. I am quite certain that it would not happen in the Royal Air Force, and I am amazed at the lack of flexibility on the part of the Army Council as a result of which it is not possible to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam suggests. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the bad effect that this has upon recruitment. It is disastrous when it becomes known that an officer can be treated in this most shabby fashion.
There were no promotion examinations during the war, when we had some of our most brilliant officers, not only in the field, but serving at the Air Ministry or the War Office, who never passed a promotion examination. Territorial officers,


for example, rose to the rank of lieutenant-general. They were brilliant officers.
The War Office, it seems, has for some reason or other decided to dispense with this man's service. It is crazy to contemplate such a thing. It was only in recent years that cadets going into Sandhurst were pushed through quite regardless of certain failings because there was a shortage. But here is an officer, who has been well decorated and has proved himself in the field and as an administrator, who is allowed to go. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that he will look into this matter again with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see whether something cannot be done. If he does not, I am quite certain that the House will hear more of it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £34,470,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

AIR ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £101,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: On Monday of this week, in the Air Estimates debate, I asked the Government to stop the practice of allowing aircraft based at Royal Air Force stations in this country to patrol with hydrogen bombs aboard. Since Monday, there has been an accident in South Carolina. Fortunately, there was no nuclear explosion and in any discussion of this incident, that must be remembered.
That accident raises serious questions as to the design of our R.A.F. hydrogen bombs. From what the—

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): May I have some guidance from the Chair, Sir Norman? Will I be in order under Vote 1—Pay of Officers—to reply to this subject?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) develops his argument.

Mr. de Freitas: I was taking the cue, Sir Norman, from what has happened in the two preceding debates, which on Vote 1 have been as wide as any Second Reading debate. If I am out of order, I will raise the subject when we come to aircraft and stores at a later stage.

The Temporary Chairman: The Committee cannot have a Second Reading debate. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Vote.

Mr. de Freitas: If we are conducting a different procedure from the other two debates, Sir Norman, I accept your Ruling. I shall confine myself to two questions. The first concerns education. From the figures on education allowances, it seems that officers—and I am glad that it is so; we have pressed for it for many years—have obtained a considerable number of concessions. I should like to be assured on two points. The first is that the education concessions and allowances for airmen are equally satisfying to them as they have been to the officers. I raised the question in the Estimates debate on Monday but there was not a chance or time for a reply to be given to it.
Another point on education is that the grants are given from the age of 11. I do not understand this, because with the 11-plus examination the most important period to have some form of stability and continuity in education is the year or so—say, two years—before the 11-plus examination. I would hope that these grants could be given from the age of 9 to 18 rather than from 11 to 18. These two years are very important.
There was another question to which the Under-Secretary did not have the time


to reply on Monday. I pointed out that there were 240 officers of air rank on a strength of 203,000 men in the Air Force and that there had also been 240 officers of air rank when the strength was 272,000. In other words, there has been no decline in the number of officers of air rank.
I freely acknowledge that we cannot expect a modern technical service like the Air Force to contract its top direction as it contracts its numbers. As a business or institution of any kind becomes more technical, there must be a higher number in the top direction in proportion to the numbers of unskilled labour. At the same time, it seems strange that there still remain so many air officers and I should like to know the justification for it.
I also made the subsidiary point that if there was to be this great opportunity of reaching air rank, of becoming air commodore and above, in the Air Force, young men should have a chance of knowing it and realising that there were many jobs at the top which the bright boy could get as he progressed through the Service. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer these two points.

8.27 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I support what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has said and I appreciate the point concerning the number of senior officers required for a technical Service. I wish, however, to press upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the importance of bearing in mind that the Royal Air Force is a young man's Service and one wants to have as senior officers men in their early forties. Fortunately, there are a number of air vice-marshals who are in their early forties. This policy must, however, be emphasised more and more.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Lincoln about the education grant. We were very glad when it was introduced, but it is not nearly enough. The provision of £75 a year to send a child to school is not nearly enough. It is taxed, and half of it goes back to the Inland Revenue in any case. Members of the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Corps serving abroad get not less titan £150 a year—and it is tax-free. It amounts, therefore, to almost four times as much as the grant for those in

the Services. This is a matter that should be looked into. It is just as important to educate the children of R.A.F. personnel as it is to educate the children of those in the Foreign Office.
The idea of starting the meagre lodging allowance at 10s. a week only when the child is 11 years old is quite ridiculous. In view of the turmoil that a child goes through at the 11-plus examination, it should have at least two years to work up to it in the school at which the examination is to be taken.
I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that this matter will be considered, and I hope that we will not be fobbed off by the Treasury saying that it cannot afford it. In the case of airmen and airwomen the total sum involved is £31,000, a very small sum in comparison with the amount of the Estimates. In fact, £100,000 would still be a relatively small sum. I hope that my hon. Friend will undertake to look at this again, with the Treasury, and come back to inform us that the figure will be increased. It is vital that it should be.

8.31 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I wish to raise a point that I have raised in previous years, in reference to Subhead G of Vote 1—Local Overseas Allowances. I notice that the amount is up by £¼ million. The Explanatory Notes in page 19 state:
This allowance is issued to officers, airmen and airwomen serving in certain countries abroad in respect of the essential extra cost, as compared with that in the United Kingdom, of maintaining a reasonable standard of living.
In other words, it is really issued because there is considered to be that need in certain overseas services.
Other things being equal, one would expect that in a year in which there has been an increase in flat-rate Service pay, there would be a decrease in overseas allowance in exactly the same way as there is a decrease in National Assistance payments when the basic rate of retirement pensions is raised. Indeed, if we raise the pay sufficiently, I presume that overseas allowance would be considered to be unnecessary.
Therefore, it is really hard to see why this figure should go up this year. If the numbers included in Subhead A went


up, one could see that there would be a rise in Subhead G. But Subhead A is going down. Are we to assume that, notwithstanding a reduction in Vote A, there is to be an increase in the number of Air Force personnel serving abroad, or, alternatively, have the countries in which the personnel serve abroad suffered an even more disastrous rise in the cost of living than has occurred here? Unless one of those two explanations can be given, it will be very difficult to understand why this Subhead of the Vote has increased by no less than £¼ million.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I want to follow the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who referred to the education allowances, appearing in page 17 of the Air Estimates. I understand that if an officer or an airman has a child at home in the United Kingdom, being educated at a boarding school, or living with someone else to complete its education at some school of the parents' own choosing, the allowance is £75 a year.
That allowance is on the low side, and should be considerably increased, but what is most unfair is that the allowance paid to the airman or the Air Force officer is taxable, whereas if he had decided to pursue a career in the Foreign Office, he would have had the same allowance, but free of tax. If there was any question of equity arising out of this. I should have thought it fairer for the Air Force officer, who is only occasionally abroad; to have the allowance free of tax, whereas the Foreign Office official, who spends the major part of his life abroad and, therefore, has to make a permanent allowance for his children, should have his allowance taxed.
My view is that in neither case should the allowance be taxable, because the State servants concerned are sent abroad, and put to this additional expense. They cannot live in a town in the United Kingdom and send their children to a day school. In many cases, they are forced to send them to boarding school, or let them board out with grandparents or other relatives while attending school. Therefore, I hope that either my right hon. or my hon. Friend will be able to say that he has some sympathy with this plea of my hon. and gallant Friend

and myself, that this allowance should, in future, be paid free of tax and, further, that it should be increased.
My second point concerns page 21 of the Estimates, where are shown various figures under the heading "Miscellaneous Allowances"—outfit allowances, tropical kit allowances, and so on, for officers. I am surprised at the meagre amounts paid to officers when they first have to equip themselves with uniform.
For instance, I notice that officer cadets of the Royal Air Force College and the Royal Air Force Technical College, Hen-low, while they receive a free issue front Air Force stocks of certain items of clothing and equipment, receive a cash allowance of £40 10s. for the purchase of the remaining items with which they have to equip themselves before they go to college. The point I am making is that, when they are commissioned from those colleges, finishing their time as cadets, the amount they receive to equip themselves as officers is only £58 10s.
I think I am right in saying that I an, the only Member of the Committee who has been to Cranwell. When I went to Cranwell, the outfit allowance I received was, I think, £80, with which to convert my cadet's uniform into an officer's uniform and buy the extra bits of equipment and uniform which I required in my commissioned state. I should like my hon. Friend to say why the outfit allowance stands at only £58 10s.
On the same page, I notice that the cash allowances on first appointment to commissions are, for officers of the Royal Air Force £14 10s., whereas for officers of the Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service, they are £104 10s. I have a great affection for officers of Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service, but I do not think it comes out at that particular amount. I should like to know why there is this discrepancy between officers of the Nursing Service and officers of the Royal Air Force itself.
Officers of the Women's Royal Air Force receive an outfit allowance of £77. We really ought to have an explanation tonight why there should be these differences in allowances. In particular, I should like to know why the amount I received when I was a cadet and commissioned from Cranwell in 1928


should have been £80, while now, after the change in the value of money, the amount is only £58 10s.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: At this time, when there is a considerable reduction in the number of National Service men in the Air Force, we notice that the amount provided for National Service grants is being increased from £224,900 to £299,900. At first glance, that is rather surprising. We have fewer National Service men, yet we anticipate that we are to spend more on the National Service grant.
It may be that more publicity has been given to this admirable service than hitherto, or it may be that the criteria on which the National Assistance Board works have been changed. It may even be that the Government expect very much harder times and wish, therefore, to make further provision in respect of financial hardship which will be caused to National Service men.
I should be grateful if we could have an explanation. It is rather intriguing that, although we are increasing the amount to be available, we are to give less to the National Assistance Board for administration. I know that it is a matter of enlightenment in respect of the Estimates, but we are allowing the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance £9,400 as against £9,600 last year. So they are to do more work, although the R.A.F. or the Air Ministry will pay them less for doing it. I think that we should have that matter sorted out.
I wanted to say a further word or two about education, but I think that that point has been covered adequately. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that the figures for these allowances in respect of education are fantastic. Even admitting that there will be a reduction in personnel during the coming year, and an increase as compared with last year, it is still ridiculous. A meagre allowance of £31,000 to cover 170,000 airmen is incredibly low.
The point has been taken about secondary education. The time when it is most dangerous to move children is the time before an important examination, like the 11-plus. That is the time

when sufficient attention must be paid to the need for education allowances.
There is another point of interest which is worth noting. We shall have many fewer people in the Royal Air Force during the coming year. Yet we are making provision under Subhead J in this Vote alone for paying £390,000 more for National Insurance contributions, although we have 37,500 fewer personnel. This is the direct result of Government policy and how we cut down Government expenditure; but this is a piece of Government policy that actually increases Government expenditure.
If we go through all the Votes, I calculated the other day that there is a figure of over £660,000 more in respect of National Insurance contributions. Has account been taken in this Vote of the latest increase in the National Health stamp, which is going up by yet another 6d.? Has the Air Ministry decided—because it makes special arrangements in relation to the division of responsibility for the payment of the stamp—how this extra 6d. is to be paid? Will it be wholly paid by the men, or will the Air Ministry take over responsibility in addition to its existing responsibility? If so, how much will the Air Ministry pay? If this is the case, will we not have another Supplementary Estimate soon?
I should be grateful if we could have an answer to these points, along with the others that have been raised.

8.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): I think that the most generally agreed point on Vote 1 has been that on educational allowances. I find myself in an embarrassing position, because I remember making an impassioned speech on this same issue. It is embarrassing to find oneself poacher turned gamekeeper.
I have looked at the comparative figures, and it is not true that the educational allowances for Foreign Office servants or civil servants and of serving officers are on exactly the same basis. For instance, Foreign Office officials are given higher educational allowances partly to avoid the danger that they would spend their representational allowances on education. After all, they are expected to entertain and to move around


to do their job overseas. Service personnel, unlike those in the Foreign Office, have an element included in their basic pay for the purpose of educating their children. But my right hon. Friend and I have noted hon. Members' views on this matter. I know exactly how they feel.
Perhaps the House will agree that it is a step in the right direction that from next month there will be an increase in these allowances; they will become £75 per annum for the first child, £100 for the second child and £125 for the third child. I can assure the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that there is no difference at all between airmen and officers in the qualification. They all qualify on exactly the same basis.
The next question raised was that of air rank officers. When I first looked through the Estimates I too was alarmed to see that apparently there were the same number of air rank officers–240 last year and 240 this year. In fact, that is a rounded average figure. We are running down the force in all ranks, but this is an average throughout the year. In practice we expect to have at least 11 fewer officers of air rank comparing 1st April, 1957, when the number was 246, and 1st April, 1959, when we expect that the total will have fallen to 235. The figure given at 240 is a mean figure rather than the actual number on any date.
It should be remembered that as the Service gets more technical and more expert we shall need more expert representation among our air rank officers. In addition, we have a call on officers of these ranks for many other jobs. They are not required only by the Royal Air Force and the Air Ministry; in addition there is a certain allocation of officers to the Commonwealth Air Forces. The Commonwealth has valued the expert advice which it has had from air rank officers of the Royal Air Force and we are continuing to detach some officers to these Air Forces. We also have air attachés in foreign missions, and the House will agree that we do not wish to see Great Britain under-represented in foreign capitals. The officers who represent us there should have a status worthy of the job.
There is also a demand for air rank officers in N.A.T.O.—a demand which has been increasing. In 1955 there were 14, and the estimated requirement for the

coming year is 17. The Ministry of Supply, too, has found that air rank officers fill a most important rôle, and its demand has risen from 9 in 1955 to 13 in the coming year.
Those comments may do something to set hon. Member's minds at rest, but I emphasise that my right hon. Friend and I are not oblivious to the need to reduce these numbers; indeed, in his speech on the Air Estimates my right hon. Friend said that he was giving close attention to cutting down the number of air rank officers and not having a surplus.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) asked about the local overseas allowance. I am glad to have an opportunity to deal with this, because too many people think that the local overseas allowance is given to all those who go overseas. I have had a number of representations in the Air Ministry on this subject, for example, from hon. Members who represent serving personnel in Christmas Island because these personnel felt that they ought to have a substantial overseas allowance. Local overseas allowance is not geared to the hardship of the case; it is geared to the cost of living in the place where a man is serving. In the early days of service in Christmas Island, when there was practically nothing except crabs and tents and virtually no N.A.A.F.I., it was very difficult to argue that the cost of living there was higher than in the United Kingdom or Germany. That position has changed, because special leave facilities are now given to personnel on Christmas Island to go to Honolulu, where the cost of living is immensely high. Therefore, a local overseas allowance has been brought in from last August to make up the difference.
I am afraid I cannot give an exact explanation of why this total vote for local overseas allowance should have increased. I can only say the rates are reviewed every six months, when we have an opportunity of adjusting them and considering whether we have allowed enough or too much. It is a difficult exercise, because we take into account the cost of living not only in our own country but in all overseas countries as well. We cannot precisely forecast that, or the exact number of personnel in each theatre at any one time.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Can we assume that the local overseas allowance will not all be spent in Honolulu?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I imagine a very small percentage will be spent in Honolulu, and I only hope it goes on righteous purposes if it is spent there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) asked why he got better treatment over outfit allowance when at Cranwell than do present day cadets. The answer is that nowadays a considerable portion of the kit is given in kind; that is to say, we give him as much as we can of items like shirts and socks, and he is only called on to pay for those items which have to be properly tailored especially to his needs. That explains to some extent why Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Association has a bigger allocation than the officers of the R.A.F. Hon. Members will appreciate that few of the standard items of clothing in the Air Force vocabulary are suitable for the nursing service, whose uniform incidentally is extremely smart.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me a number of questions, and I must confess that I cannot answer them all as I am not a walking encyclopedia on all the details. He made some valuable points, one of which was that some £13 per person extra was allowed for National Service grants. On a diminishing Force there is a greater expenditure. Having done my arithmetic, I hope, correctly, in dividing one into the other, I think this means that a greater contribution is required. However, I would like to look into that point because I think the Committee would not wish me to give a snap answer. I will also look into the question of the health stamp, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he also answers my point about Vote A which I put the other day and to which I did not receive an answer?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I made the point that my right hon. Friend has already started to work assiduously through the report of that debate, marking the points raised, and I believe he has started to prepare the letters, as he has done in previous years, replying to points he could not answer.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would my hon. Friend assure the Committee that he will try to do something about the education allowance? He said he noted the point. We have heard that often. Things are noted and nothing happens. It is the same over letters. That reply is not convincing and I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will do something about it. It is not good enough to give these people 10s. a week for a leave allowance. I hope my hon. Friend will inform the Committee that he and his right hon. Friend will take up the matter with the Treasury and see that fair play is given to the R.A.F. personnel and their children.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Committee should bear in mind, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that in the last interim instalment, as I hope it will be, allowances and pay increases for all three Services cost an extra £30 million. The Grigg Committee is examining what measures are necessary to recruit the number of people we want for the three armed Services. That Committee no doubt will consider the points which have been put forward in this Committee this evening on the question of educational allowances, and will consider whether, if they were increased, it would be an incentive for many people serving in the ranks and as officers in the Royal Air Force to sign on for an extra period and have their minds put at rest that their children were getting a fair and decent education.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £101,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959.

Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £1,379,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 5,000, all ranks for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959.

8.53 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Since no one else is likely to do it, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the


very substantial reductions which have been achieved in this field, as compared with last year?

8.54 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like also to join in those congratulations, but I am rather interested here in Subhead G—Miscellaneous Services. I remember that I myself was once a miscellaneous service, under Subhead G, which is a very important subhead, in my view. It deals with the university air squadrons.
These university air squadrons have been a very valuable part of the service of the Royal Air Force, and my hon. Friend has pointed out the encouragement that should be given to youth to pursue a career of flying. Let me say straight away that most of us, in the days when we went into the air squadrons of the universities, certainly never intended for our whole lives necessarily to pursue a career in the Royal Air Force. The selection of candidates at that time perhaps left much to be desired.
On the occasion when I remember coming up for selection for the air squadron, I remember that the selection committee included amongst others a very notable weight-putter, Mr. George Howland. George Howland was one of the greatest weight-putters this country ever had, and my one claim to fame at the university was that at school I had won a weight-putting contest. I came up for selection for the university air squadron and went through very smartly because I had succeeded at school in putting the weight 36 feet. Admittedly, it was only a 12lb. weight, but, in those circumstances, I got into the Cambridge Air Squadron.
From my point of view, this was quite admirable. I always regarded it as most important that people should be able to learn to fly on the cheap, and I had managed to learn to fly on the cheap. Everything went extremely well until we got to the fourteen days at Abingdon, which was extremely good, but for which one had a very rude word. In fact, the party the night before was so good that I was an hour late in getting into the air and was grounded. So I was advised that, perhaps, flying was not the best career for me.
None the less, in those days at the university, Norman Yardley and many others of those who are engaged in, shall we say, the sporting pursuits of the

universities, obtained a most admirable training, and every one of them always gave a very good hand to the air squadrons. What happened, of course, was this. When the war came in 1939, a great many of these men became some of our best pilots in 600, 601 and 604 Squadrons, the earliest reserve squadrons of those days.
I was, therefore, not very happy to see that in this Vote we regard that as a miscellaneous service. It is a most valuable service. Like all of us, I want to see a reduction, and I notice that the reduction in this case is from £19,000 to £9,000. That ought not to be passed without saying what one hopes for the future in the better days to come. I am sure that these university air squadrons understand our present difficulties, but I wonder whether some interested industry might not be able to give some sort of grant to assist in the training of young university men in flying.
In the old days, the R.A.F. paid for one to learn to fly and it got the best of the young men during the war in the Volunteer Reserve. If every year less is devoted to university flying because more has to be devoted to jet bombers, or more nuclear development, we will not give young men the necessary training.
The attractive part of the Royal Air Force is the tremendous importance given to character building and training begins at an early age when it is started in a university air squadron. It is the spirit of adventure. This is a chance of being able to fly, not necessarily because one intends to follow that career, and it is a very good thing that young men at university should have a chance to fly. They cannot afford to pay for it and I do not believe that these Votes in future will carry the whole burden. In fact, I think it is right that they should be reduced and yet I want these young men to have the opportunity to learn to fly while they are young.
I do not know how that is to be done, but, presumably, the large companies interested in the manufacture of aircraft for the civil side are in the closest collaboration and discussion about the matter. I suggest that the Under-Secretary has a discussion with his opposite number at the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—or that the respective Ministers should meet—to see whether industry could not make a grant


to the universities so that young men could be taught not only flying and navigation, but all the necessary technical grounding while they are at university so that in that way the very valuable work done at universities could be preserved.
I say all this quite seriously. I did not intend to say it seriously when I got to my feet, but it suddenly occurred to me that it was a good idea. [Laughter.]

Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member's speech in order? It is going on and on over the same point and there is nothing about contributions from industry in the Vote. I raise this point of order only because I was pulled up very sharply and asked to confine myself to the subject.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend was discussing page 39 of the Estimates and the explanatory note referring to miscellaneous services. There is a reference to the expense of operating university air squadrons of which, like my hon. Friend, I have had experience, although my experience was probably much longer ago than his. My hon. Friend was explaining the desirability of maintaining these university air squadrons and how he hoped to ease the financial strain on the country by obtaining contributions from industry. With great deference, I submit that he was perfectly in order in dealing with getting financial assistance from industry and I suggest that he should be allowed to develop his argument.

The Chairman (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): I was paying attention to the hon. Member's speech, and I thought that his remarks about the university air squadrons were in order. My only regret was that he did not tell us the word which he said he could not use here.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We never have the liberty of language here that we had in the days when we were at the universities. That is perhaps the only unforunate feature of being a Member of the House.
It may be that I began my speech in a spirit of flippancy, but the atmosphere of the House captivates anyone who speaks in it, and the result is that he finds that he really is striking a serious note. I am quite sincere about this matter.
This is an important point, and the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who raised the question whether I was in order, knows a great deal about the subject himself. There is a cut from £19,000 to £9,000 in respect of the so-called miscellaneous services, which cover the university air squadrons. Nobody will suggest that that sum will provide a decent service, but I am not going to suggest that the Royal Air Force can be expected to pay the required amount in modern conditions. Nevertheless, I feel that we are going through a rather difficult transition period at the and yet we do not want to get rid of all Forces, and the amount spent on them, moment. We are scaling down our the services which such a reduction entails.
If we are going to agree to Votes of this kind we want an assurance that the Government are doing their best, through outside channels, to try to preserve this service, which will not be carried on the Vote. If that can be done we shall get the best of both worlds.
As I was saying, if the great firms engaged in the industry, with which many hon. Members are associated—I do not refer to the National Coal Board—could make a specific contribution to enable the Vote to be increased it would enable us to preserve all the great traditions and prestige of these air squadrons.
I speak with all due humility, because I was a specially unfortunate member of a university air squadron, and not a good flier, but the members of these air squadrons are some of the finest fliers, and in the past they have gone into other walks of life and made the greatest success of them. My recollection is what Whitney Straight himself started in that way, in a university air squadron, before going off to his present post.

9.8 p.m.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I should like to say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend did not continue his career in the Royal Air Force. We probably missed a great deal in not having his services for a period of years.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We are sorry that he did not continue his career of putting the weight.

Sir A. V. Harvey: That is equally unfortunate.
I find the Explanatory Notes very confusing upon the subject of university air squadrons. I cannot think that the sum of £19,000 last year, and still less £9,000 this year, can cover the training of these university graduates. I should like to see more detail in the Explanatory Notes so that we may see what we are getting for our money.
The Explanatory Notes talk about a small staff of 122 officers, 118 airmen and 62 civilians. I do not regard that as a small staff, and I imagine that the cost of it is not contained in the £9,000. I should like to know what we are getting out of the university air squadrons today. I am all for having them, but I should like to know how many graduates are being trained to fly and how many, upon leaving the universities, join the Regular Air Force—both in the general duties branch and on the technical side.
Although we have had these squadrons for many years the Air Force has never been very successful in capturing a sufficient number of university graduates who feel that they can make the Service a life career. I wonder if something more can be done about it. I know that all the Services have to compete with industry in this respect, but if the money is being well spent I am sure that it is a good investment. I want to know what the £9,000 is being spent on. It cannot be on the running of the squadrons.
I should like to refer to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which is mentioned in page 26 of the Estimates. We all remember what I think was the shabby deal given to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force when it was broken up about a year ago. Probably there was a reason for it. I think there might have been a case for a steady run-down of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I know that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the planning of the break-up, because he was not at the Air Ministry at the time. What happened was that the Royal Air Force had so many Regular officers that it would have been embarrassed by their numbers if the Royal Auxiliary Air Force had been maintained in any number at all; so its personnel was sacked practically overnight.
I am concerned that in this year, 1958–59, we are spending £176,000, against £230,000 last year, on the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. It seems to me that we get little for our money. I know

that radar stations are manned. to some extent, by auxiliary personnel, but the number of other ranks has fallen and the number of officers has gone down very little—from 2,300 to 2,000. Does that mean that only 300 officers altogether were affected by the abolition of the actual flying squadrons? I should like to know more about that.
Then there is the Royal Observer Corps. That is a part of the Royal Air Force which we never hear mentioned today. The Corps did a tremendously fine job during the war. Men who were too old for military service stood in the mountains and did their spotting, and so on. We are spending £1,000 less on these gentlemen than in the previous year. May we be told a little more about the Corps? I think that the country has a right to be informed.
There is also the Royal Air Force Reserve. I should like to know, and I think the Committee is entitled to know, what we are getting from the Reserve. I wish to know how many hours these people fly in the course of a year and what type of aircraft they are flying. Are they performing duties which are really worth while? It was thought that the Auxiliary Air Force was not playing a worth while part flying fighter aircraft, yet we continue to train pilots in the Royal Air Force Reserve.
I am a great believer in reserve and auxiliary forces, and if money is spent on that sort of thing, it is well spent. One always finds enthusiasm among men who give up their spare time to the service of their country. The Committee is entitled to know more about what these people are doing and what we are getting for the money which is being spent.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. de Freitas: In this Vote there is a reference to the reduced civil defence training of reservists and I wish to comment on it. What has happened recently has shown that there is more need for the training of reservists in civil defence. The point has been made forcibly by Questions which we have put several times to the Prime Minister and other Ministers about the need for the training of civil defence teams and fire brigades to deal with aircraft which may be carrying nuclear weapons if they should be involved in a crash or if the weapons should fall from the aircraft. In page 27 of the Estimates it states that there


is a decrease under Vote 2 and one of the reasons is the
…reduced civil defence training of reservists.
From what we have been told we knew that, in an ordinary aircraft patrolling this country and carrying a hydrogen bomb, the primer was carried separately from the hydrogen bomb. We knew that the hydrogen bomb was not primed.

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. We are discussing the item in page 2, "Reserve and Auxiliary Services". The hon. Gentleman is flying off at a most extraordinary tangent. He intervened in the debate, when several of my hon. Friends wanted to make contributions and—

The Chairman: I can answer the point of order now. The relevant item is at the bottom of page 27:
…to reduced civil defence training of reservists".

Mr. Dudley Williams: The hon. Gentleman was not discussing the training of reservists, but the manner in which the hydogen bomb was carried and in which part of the aeroplane it was carried.

The Chairman: If he is out of order I will stop him.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) will read the document and study it. He will see that there is liability to call up reservists if the contingency that I was describing should occur. We knew that when the hydogen bomb was primed its safety depended upon there being no human error and no mechanical defect.
Since the matter was raised on the Air Estimates on Monday, we have learned from the aircraft accident in South Carolina that even an unprimed hydrogen bomb can cause considerable damage because it incorporates a high-explosive trigger bomb. Civil defence must be trained to deal with it. That is why I am against what is in Vote 2.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. What has the air accident in South Carolina, and whether a bomb was carried in the aircraft, to do with training on the ground in this country.

The Chairman: The point is that the hon. Gentleman cannot ask for more money for this service.

Mr. de Freitas: I am not asking for more money, Sir Charles. I am showing the wickedness of reducing civil defence training of reservists. I am not asking for more. I am sure that is correct. The hon. Member who raised the point of order should address himself to the point that the bomb which fell was unprimed yet, such was its design—

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. Are we not discussing reservists in the Royal Air Force?

The Chairman: I am in charge of the Committee, and we have very little time.

Mr. de Freitas: The bomb was unprimed, yet such was its design that there was a T.N.T. explosion big enough to blow a crater of the size made by the conventional 1,000 lb. bomb. It seems that these hydrogen bombs contain conventional bombs which explode on impact with the ground. We have been told by the Government—I am sure they did not mean to mislead us—that aircraft were patrolling with hydrogen bombs that were not primed. What we were not told was that inside each hydrogen bomb there was the equivalent of a 1,000 lb. high explosive trigger bomb which could detonate on impact. That is what happened. Those are matters with which reservists should be trained to deal, because they are likely to face this danger. It is wrong that they should not have received adequate training.
Apart from the direct damage done by such a H.E. explosion, there must be a considerably increased risk of damage to the casing of a hydrogen bomb if there is a substantial high-explosive explosion. If an aircraft crashed or a bomb fell we know there would be a possibility of radioactive material being released, because of a break in the casing. Since Monday we have learned that there is substantially more chance of the casing being cracked because there is danger through explosion as well as danger through impact, Secondly, in addition to the possibility of the release of radioactive material we have the probability or it may even be the certainty, of a conventional explosion equivalent to that of a 1,000 lb. bomb.
That is most important when considering civil defence training. We have continually pressed the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State to train civil defence forces to deal


with this danger. I ask the Under-Secretary to note that our demand for the stopping of these patrols is not only the considered policy of our party, but has wide support from many millions outside. We ask the Government to do three things: first, to stop these hydrogen bomb patrols, second, to look at the design of our hydrogen bomb to see if it is defective—

The Chairman: I have done my best for the hon. Gentleman but I cannot allow that point to be developed.

Mr. de Freitas: I have one more sentence, Sir Charles, and it is in order. The third point is to train the civil defence teams and the fire services, in and out of the Armed Forces, to deal with accidents involving hydrogen bombs either stored or in transit. It is most important that should be done.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I will deal with the points raised on this Vote in the order in which they were raised. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on the way in which he got the university air squadrons into the discussion. It would, of course have been unfair to suggest that he was throwing his weight about—a weight, I can say without in any way insulting his figure, which is certainly not a 12 lb. one.
The university air squadrons are doing a very worthwhile job. It is difficult to measure their value entirely in terms of recruits, but we do get some very valuable recruits. Until recently there was even one member of the Air Council who came into the Royal Air Force through a university air squadron. Obviously when we are examining our Votes, as we have to do most carefully, we must consider every facet of the question. The Inspector-General went round all the university air squadrons and discussed with the university authorities the merits of having the squadrons continuing. Every university said that they got a great deal of value out of these squadrons. They were a conspicuous feature of university life. After all, the object is to put before young people every possible opportunity; and these squadrons put before them the opportunities which exist in the Royal Air Force, and encouraged an interest in flying.
The question was asked, why had the Vote gone down? It has gone down for two reasons. First, this Vote does not include the cost of the aircraft and the servicing and the petrol, oil and lubricants, for example. It is a small residual Vote, and not the basic Vote or cost of the university air squadrons. It has also gone down because we have pruned the subsidiary parts of the university air squadrons. We have retained all 17 of the squadrons, but we have pruned the navigation training establishment which existed at Cambridge and we have pruned the C and R element at London, which was costing a great deal of money for a relatively small return. We have pruned these establishments because it was felt that we were perhaps over-generous in giving so much flying to those who were not really interested in joining the R.A.F. We have at the same time turned over to cheaper aircraft, we have gone to the Chipmunk, a lighter aircraft than the Harvard which previously was used by a number of the university air squadrons.
We hope also that the university air squadrons will perform a valuable function in helping the amount of flying of the Air Training Corps. At the 17 university towns, we have the Chipmunks and the instructors available and we have the whole organisation for maintaining them. The natural thing to do is to link them with the local squadrons of the Air Training Corps and to give the corps the opportunity, particularly during vacations, of going to the airfields used by the university air squadrons and making use of the Chipmunks and all the facilities.
I confess that in terms of actual numbers the recruiting output of these squadrons is small; but in terms of the prestige that the Air Force gets as a result of these squadrons, the reward is very great. I was at Cambridge last Friday—I apologise to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) for being at his university—when the University Air Squadron dinner was held. It was attended by 300 people, Lord Tedder was the guest of honour and it was quite clear that the squadron had tremendous support at the university. The previous week, I was at Oxford. The people there are a robust lot too, and they are good not only at putting the weight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked about


fighter control and radar reporting units, and he was quite right; we have had to prune them. Those which remain are, however, still doing a very worthwhile job.
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the question of the Royal Observer Corps, to which insufficient publicity is given. In the past, the Corps has been responsible mainly for tracking low-flying aircraft. Now, it is responsible also for tracking the fall-out from nuclear explosions. This is an important job, and one which we could not possibly do without.
My hon. Friend asked what was being done about the R.A.F. Reserve. It is not, perhaps, such a ready reserve as it was in my hon. Friend's day. Its members are not getting any flying experience to keep them up to date. Nevertheless, they are very valuable and in an emergency we could call upon them as we have done in the past.
The university air squadrons are, in our opinion, tremendously valuable. They served us extremely well at the time of the Battle of Britain. I tried to join when I was up there, but having had a mastoid I was ruled out. There were many gallant and "gutful" people who came from them into the Auxiliary squadrons—Nos. 600 and 601 squadrons in London, for example—and who did a first-class job. In fact, the first German aircraft to be shot down was brought down by an Auxiliary pilot.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln on managing to get on to the subject of H-bombs and A-bombs in discussing this Vote. Apparently, the hon. Member thought that B.47 aircraft came under our Royal Air Force Vote. I do not think that the Committee stage of the Air Estimates is the best opportunity to make a statement of such a nature. I have been looking through the Order Paper and I find that a host of Questions—at least eight already—have been put down for next Tuesday, and there is still opportunity of putting down more, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. de Freitas: Mr. de Freitas rose—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I finish? I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has it in mind to make a considered statement on this matter on Tuesday. I should have thought that it was the feeling of the House that a state-

ment coming from that source would be much more valuable and appropriate—and, of course, there will be more time to consider the statement—than anything that an Under-Secretary might say during the Committee stage.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that on Tuesday the Prime Minister will not say that he considers it the sort of matter which should not be dealt with by question and answer?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take into account everything that the hon. Member has said, including his points about the 1,000 lb. charge and the bursting of the casing—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Charles—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot put a point of order now, I am afraid. I am bound by the Standing Order to carry on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1.379,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 5,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Air Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all outstanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess:

AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59

That a sum, not exceeding £233,120,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,


1959, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—




£


7.
Aircraft and Stores
196,800,000


8.
Works and Lands
31,450,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
4,870,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
100




£233,120,100

Question put and agreed to.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10; be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1958, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



£
£


Vote


1. Pay, &amp;c., of the Air Force
Cr. 90,000
*- 50,000


2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
Cr. 270,000
*- 80,000


3. Air Ministry
420,000
—


4. Civilians at Out-stations
1,890,000
*- 710,000


5. Movements
Cr. 250,000
1,340,000


6. Supplies
Cr. 690,000
570,000


7. Aircraft and Stores
750,000
1,250,000


8. Works and Lands
Cr.6,720,000
*- 4,000,000


10. Non-effective Services
4,960,010
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*- 500,000


Total, Air (Supplementary) 1957–58 £
10
*- 2,180,000


* Deficit.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1957–58

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,317,167, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1958, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—


Civil Estimates


Class I



£


1. House of Lords
1,167


2. House of Commons
12,710





4. Treasury and Subordinate
£


Departments
148,000


6. Charity Commission.
487


7. Civil Service Commission 
23,040


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
8,000


12. Government Hospitality
8,500


14. National Debt Office
10


16. Public Record Office
10


18. Royal Commissions, &amp;c.
6,500


20. Silver
425


22. Miscellaneous Expenses
10


23. Scottish Home Department
10


24. Scottish Record Office
10

Class II


1. Foreign Service
10


3. British Council
75,000


4. Commonwealth Relations Office
138,000


5. Commonwealth Services
10


7. Colonial Office
86,641


8. Colonial Services
5,878,502

Class III


3. Police, England and Wales
1,448,925


4. Prisons, England and Wales
664,000


5. Child Care, England and Wales
352,700


7. Carlisle State Management District
10


8. Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c
185,512


9. County Courts
10


16. Police, Scotland
237,510


17. Prisons, Scotland
40,050


19. Fire Services, Scotland
9,000


20. State Management Districts, Scotland
10


21. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
10


22. Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


23. Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c. Northern Ireland
5,581

Class IV


2. British Museum
79,000


3. British Museum (Natural History) 
14,932


4. Imperial War Museum
10


5. London Museum
1,700


6. National Gallery
16,390


7. Tate Gallery
3,834


8. National Maritime Museum
1,401


9. National Portrait Gallery
1,000


10. Wallace Collection
740


12. Universities and Colleges &amp;c, Great Britain
1,700,000


13. Broadcasting
694,000

Class V


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government
10


2. Housing, England and Wales
10


4. Ministry of Health
405,150


6. Medical Research Council
95,000


7. Registrar General's Office
10,630


9. War Damage Commission
15,500


12 Housing, Scotland
204,800

Class VI



£


1. Board of Trade
420,000


9. Ministry of Labour and National Service 
345,000


10. Ministry of Supply
8,350,000

Class VII


1. Ministry of Works
150,000


8. Rates on Government Property
1,350,000


9. Stationery and Printing
10


10. Central Office of Information
60,000

Class VIII


5. Fishery Grants and Services
195,010


6. Surveys of Great Britain &amp;c.
189,000


7. Office of Crown Estate Commissioners
1,900

Class IX


1. Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation
354,700


3. Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
264,000


7. Atomic Energy
10


8. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
10

Class X


1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
850,000


2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
200,400


3. War Pensions, &amp;c
2,993,750


4. National Insurance and Family Allowances
6,575,000


5. National Assistance Board Revenue Departments
5,459,000


1. Customs and Excise
369,200


3. Post Office (Revised sum)
17,615,000



£58,317,167

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1957–58

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL (EXCESS), 1956–57

That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant for National Assistance Board for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate
Appropriations in Aid
Excess Vote



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s
d


Class X











5. National Assistance Board.
33,581
3
1
33,571
3
1
10
0
0


Total, Civil (Excess)
10
0
0

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY (EXCESSES), 1956–57

That a sum, not exceeding £469,975 15s. 0d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957.

SCHEDULE


No. of Vote
Navy Services, 1956–57 Vote
DEFICITS
SURPLUSES


Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts
Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure
Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, &amp;c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
—
—
1,027,815
19
10
158,815
13
7


2
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy 
676,261
5
4
—
—
478,677
1
5


3
Medical Establishments and Services
8,049
11
6
—
—
12,168
19
8


4
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
28,511
15
3
—
—
5,168
4
2


5
Educational Services
—
—
45,875
3
8
10,455
0
7


6
Scientific Services
—
—
942,573
17
6
24,991
19
5


7
Royal Naval Reserves
—
—
38,376
3
5
927
3
8


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c:



Section I.—Personnel
—
168,125
6
8
46,525
9
5
—



Section II.—Matériel
802,479
4
11
—
—
484,426
18
3



Section III.—Contract Work
1,143,861
9
8
1,278,379
13
5
—
—


9
Naval Armaments
—
366,053
17
9
512,657
12
7
—


10
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
—
—
268,901
2
3
4,108
15
9


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services
—
318,720
14
8
63,666
17
11
—


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
38,115
6
1
17,433
4
4


13
Non-Effective Services
—
—
99,454
16
8
54,277
11
7


14
Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair 
2,100
16
3
—
—
—


15
Additional Married Quarters.
9,037
13
8
—
—
—


—
Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
3,807
7
8
—
—
—




2,674,109
4
3
2,131,279
12
6
3,083,962
9
4
1,251,450
12
5



Excess Vote
—
—
469,975
15
0
—




2,674,109
4
3
2,131,279
12
6
3,553,938
4
4
1,251,450
12
5




£4,805,388 16 9
£4,805,388 16 9

Question put and agreed to.

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I go back to the point I was going to put a few moments ago? The procedure which has been followed on the Service Estimates this year is a procedure which I understand to be experimental. Some of us who would wish to take a great interest in the last of the Service Estimates which have been put before us have felt ourselves considerably restricted. We feel

that this year—it may not always be so in future—the Air Estimates have been of particular interest, but, as a result of the procedure we have followed, it has been virtually impossible to deal with more than two Votes out of a selected list of four or five.
All I wish to place on record, as a point of order if I may, is the hope that reconsideration will be given to this matter in future so that we are not, on the back benches, restricted as we have been this year.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: It is not a point of order. But I will see that note is taken of what the hon. and gallant Member has said. Did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) wish to raise the same point.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The same point, Sir Charles. If I may elaborate what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has said, we have had the three Services today commencing after Questions, and the Air Votes came on tonight at a quarter past eight.

The Chairman: This is really not a point of order at all.

Sir A. V. Harvey: May I as a back bencher put on record that we have had only one hour and a quarter to discuss the Air Votes, whereas the other two Services had almost double that time? It is surely right that the Air Force Votes should have had more than that.

The Chairman: I can do nothing about that.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £469,985 15s. 0d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, the sum of £106,388,892 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, the sum of £1,855,920,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

SUGAR AND MOLASSES

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Distribution Payments and Repayments) (Revocation) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 223), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
It would probably be convenient if we could discuss at the same time the following three Prayers:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Distribution Payments and Repayments) (Revocation) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 224), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Suspension of Surcharge and Surcharge Repayments) (Revocation) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 225), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sugar and Molasses (Rates of Surcharge and Surcharge Repayments) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 226), dated 13th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
If necessary, perhaps we could vote upon them separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Certainly, let them be discussed together, and then we can have separate votes, if so desired, when the time comes.

Mr. Willey: Although these are separate Orders, they cover a single operation. The Sugar Board, which was created by the Sugar Act, 1956, was charged with the responsibility of selling at world prices the 11 million tons of Commonwealth sugar that we agreed to purchase at agreed prices.
First, I would like to make clear that we on this side of the House give every support to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. As we made clear during the discussions on the Sugar Bill, we think that one of the disadvantages of the present procedure is that it may lead to situations which make it more difficult to support the Agreement. We think that more simple machinery could have been


provided to support the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but the purpose of the present arrangements is to ensure that the Board recovers any loss upon the sale of sugar purchased under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement or distributes any profit by means of equalisation payment.
These Orders end the distribution payments that were being made. Because it was believed that the price of Commonwealth sugar would be below the world price, the Sugar Board provided for a distribution payment of a lb., and that has been enjoyed by the trade since July. The Board is now proposing a very drastic alteration of policy, and imposing a surchage of 1¼d. a lb. In other words, we are adding 1¾d. to the first-hand selling price of sugar. That is obviously a very serious matter for the Government, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised to hear that we have chosen to raise this matter tonight.
After all, sugar is an important item in the household budget, not only because it is a repeated and direct expenditure, but because the sugar price affects many other prices—for instance, confectionery prices. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps welcome the opportunity of a debate to seek to explain why there is this change of policy.
After the price increases which we criticised and which were imposed in December, 1956, and January, 1957, we have enjoyed reductions in the retail price of sugar. I believe—and I think that this will be conceded by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—that the debate that we held about twelve months ago was a factor in ensuring that we achieved those price reductions. I hope that the present debate will, at any rate, be a moderating factor in effecting any retail price increases.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I would like to think that our debates have this effect. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that our debate last year had an effect on world prices and brought them down?

Mr. Willey: No. It had an effect on domestic prices. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was in the unfortunate position of having to justify an untenable case. The Sugar Board made a mistake.

It began by imposing a surcharge in circumstances which ought to have led to a distribution payment. I will not turn to that point, but I am sure that the debate in the House in which we called attention to this matter had an effect upon the trade. This trade is very anxious not to upset public opinion.
Whether the present situation is avoidable or not, I am sure that the whole House regards it as unfortunate. Some misfortunes cannot be avoided, but at any rate the Parliamentary Secretary should not continue to be flippant but should regard it as a matter of importance that at this time of the year, when we are trying to hold prices steady, we have a threat, and in many instances already an imposition, of increased retail prices. This is a price increase which has a boomerang effect because it influences other prices.
How far is the present price increase unavoidable? I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in Standing Committee on the Sugar Bill we maintained—and I think we have been justified by subsequent events—that the Government were following a high price policy. We said that if this happened everyone along the line would play safe. I think it is quite clear what has happened about sugar.
I ask the House to consider whether the Sugar Board is right, in the light of its history. The Parliamentary Secretary's intervention reminded us of the initial mistake which the Sugar Board made when it began with a surcharge of one-eighth of a penny per lb.—a nominal surcharge, but nevertheless a surcharge. When we discussed these matters on a Prayer about twelve months ago the whole House recognised that instead of a surcharge there ought to have been a distribution payment, because at that time the Commonwealth price was below the world price.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not deny it on that occasion. I do not know whether he will deny it today. He then said that the Sugar Board must have about six months to think about these things. But it was a fact that the Sugar Board began with a surcharge when the circumstances demanded a distribution payment.
What did the Board do next? It waited until July, and in July it provided


for a distribution payment. What happened? Almost immediately after the Order providing for a distribution payment, the sugar market broke. World prices toppled, and they are still falling.
In those circumstances, we want some explanation of the Sugar Board's conduct. Everybody has recognised that for months the Sugar Board has been working at a loss. In those circumstances, as on the two previous occasions, the Sugar Board has patently been wrong. The Parliamentary Secretary ought surely to recognise that the burden is upon him to show that for a change the Board is right.
The action of the Board in now imposing this surcharge must be based on the Board's forecast of the future trend of world prices. I agree that the Cuban price is still falling and that the Commonwealth price has slightly increased, but I remind the House that the arguments which were put forward last time about the world price still obtain. It is true that there was reference to Suez. I do not want to make any reference to that.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Why not?

Mr. Willey: I do not want to recall the effect of Suez upon world prices. The main argument then was the increased consumption of sugar in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that this trend has been arrested? This was the main reason then given for an increase in the world price of sugar. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has to agree that there is some burden upon him and the Government to tell us whether they accept the Sugar Board's forecast.
I would put this plainly to the Parliamentary Secretary. We foresaw all these difficulties when we discussed the Sugar Bill. We said that we wanted on the Sugar Board people of commercial experience. We said that if such forecasts were to be made we should have people well qualified by experience to undertake the job. We were told by the Chancellor that all we wanted was an accountancy body. Accountants have some qualities, but I do not think this is purely an accountancy question and the Government should have accepted our advice.
In the light of the experience over the past year or so the Parliamentary Secretary has an obligation to tell the House upon what factors the present estimate is based. Incidentally, I hope he will tell the House why on the two previous occasions the Sugar Board was wrong. I hope he will tell us, too, something about the finances of the Sugar Board and how its reserves have been over the time it has been operated. I know there is no inducement to the Board to make profits because it is a non-profit making body. Yet I was surprised to learn that it is subject to Income Tax and Profits Tax. That is an anomaly we should put right. The general duty of the Board is to balance one year with another, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to tell us how things have worked out over the past twelve months.
The major concern we share here is about the effect this will have on the retail price. I have already noticed that in some parts of the country there have been increases already in the retail price. I know, on the other hand, that there are some admirable concerns which so far have held the retail price. We want to know when the Parliamentary Secretary thinks, if a price increase is justified, it would be justifiable to imposed that increase.
This is an industry which carries considerable stocks. We know the temptation there is to make profit on stocks. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reveal to us, because the facts are all known to him, what the stock position has been so that there will not be any undue profiteering in such a situation. If there is to be a price increase, as there has been in some parts of the country, how much is it to be? We are discussing tonight an equalisation payment. I was horrified to get the impression from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time today that he expects a price increase of 1¾d. I hope that impression was wrong, because we are discussing here an equalisation payment and it would be a ludicrous position if we had a retail price increase of 1¾d. when the world price of sugar has fallen.

Mr. Mellish: But is not it a fact that today the Minister said there was an increase of this character?

Mr. Willey: It is clear that the Parliamentary Secretary will not rise to this. I expect he is thinking how he can explain his right hon. Friend's statement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that was the impression created by the Minister in the House. If he wishes to correct that impression I will give way, and I invite him to do so.

Mr. Mellish: Answer.

Mr. Willey: I gather from his silence that the lion. Gentleman agrees that this impression was created in the House.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Minister mentioned a specific sum of money? It is within the recollection of myself and my hon. Friends that the right hon. Gentleman said 1¾d.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary is unusually coy. It would be a ludicrous position for us to find ourselves in if, because there is a drastic fall in world prices, we should have to pay more for sugar. This is a difficult calculation. I have been trying for a year or so to find out the different prices of world sugar and the sugar produced by the British Sugar Corporation, from the Commonwealth. I can only assure the House, and this is a great tribute to the Corporation, that British Sugar Corporation sugar is not the most expensive sugar we buy. If we bought British Sugar Corporation sugar and sugar at the world rate, we should contain the retail price within the present figure.
The Parliamentary Secretary has a special responsibility—his hon. Friends may not know; they may not have followed our proceedings on the Sugar Bill—because this present Government sought power and now have the power to control the margins of the refineries. That will probably surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite who stump the country talking about controls. The present Government sought these powers and obtained them. They have the power to ensure that the refiners' margins are reasonable. They have 'the power to intervene and to control them.
That put a duty four-square on the shoulders of the Government. If we are battling against inflation, if we want to avoid a price increase, as I am sure we all do, the Parliamentary Secretary must, first of all, discharge his responsibility to the House and tell us why this action

has led, in some instances, to a retail price increase. If he believes that there must be a retail price increase, he must tell us what he thinks is a proper and reasonable price increase, and he must not evade his responsibility.
If we are to stand together and battle against inflation, the Parliamentary Secretary, if necessary, has to intervene. He has to use the powers which his Government sought and obtained in 1956. He has to ensure that the sugar refiners and the people in the sugar trade make their contribution to holding the price. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, before we finish this debate, will discharge these two burdens.

Sir James Duncan: What about the farmers?

Mr. Willey: I am not inviting the Parliamentary Secretary to say anything about the farmers. He will do that later, and it will be very bad news for the farmers; but I think that is outside the Motion we are discussing.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, first, why he is allowing an increase in the retail price of sugar, and, secondly, whether he is to take steps, which Parliament allows him to do under the powers given in 1956, to see, if increases are allowed, that they are kept to a minimum. Will he use the powers we gave him in the Sugar Act, 1956?

9.58 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, having special regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I do not propose to argue the merits or demerits of the surcharge, nor to deal to any great extent with the question of sugar prices. I ask the House to look at these Orders from the point of view of public accountability. It seems most important to me, when we are considering the operations of a commerical board such as the Sugar Board—even if it has quite limited powers so far as trading goes, but, nevertheless, whose operations have an effect upon the consumer price—that the consumer should have available as full a statement of the facts of the position as is possible.
My hon. Friend has explained that this question of sugar is a most complex business indeed. It was made very much more complex, in our judgment, by the setting up of the Sugar Board itself. We complained at the time that, from the point of view of complexity alone, it was not a helpful process from the consumer's point of view.
In Committee on the Sugar Bill, my hon. Friends and I tried to insert provisions for consumer safeguards, but we were unsuccessful, so that the present position is that it is only this House which can act in these matters as the consumers' watchdog. It is therefore important that we should have the fullest information upon which to pass the judgments which we are asked to make.
With these Orders, the very reverse appears to be happening. The Annual Report of the Sugar Board has not yet been published, although the Board has been in operation for nearly fifteen months and it is therefore time that we had a report of the operations of the Board for at least the first twelve months of its existence. I can imagine that there may be some reason for the delay—audits and so on—but even if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some good reason, there is another matter which is most important. Why has it been necessary to make these Orders and why has it been necessary to introduce them before the Report of the Board has appeared?
In one of the Orders, we are asked to approve the rates of surcharge on sugar and molasses. Section 7 (6, b) of the Sugar Act, 1956, says that the rates of surcharge must have regard to the financial position and prospects of the Board at the time when an Order is made. This evening we are asked to approve rates of surcharge having regard to the financial position and prospects of the Board, although we know absolutely nothing about them. How can we know if the Report has not been published?
If there is some good reason why it has not been published, why was it not possible to delay the introduction of the Orders until after the Report had appeared? We are asked to pass judgment although we cannot exercise our proper duties unless we have the fullest information. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say something about this important matter of the Board's Report and to let

us know when we can expect to have it and when we can expect to have that information upon which alone we can properly judge the matters which we are called upon to consider tonight.
I ask him, above all, to bear in mind in future that the timetable of these things ought to have regard to our responsibilities in the House, and that we ought to have the fullest possible information at the right time before we are asked to decide upon Orders such as this.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: We have just heard the authentic voice of the Cooperative Union speaking. My hon. Friend has just argued for the consumers. The Minister has a heavy load to bear tonight. He must justify these Orders, because he has issued them in a somewhat topsy-turvy world. We have been given no figures, but we have a strong suspicion that in Cuba and many other sugar-producing areas sugar prices are falling. Yet at home my wife, and the wives of other hon. Members will be going into the shops in the near future and paying more for sugar.
The Minister has a job on his plate tonight. The situation seems to be completely crazy. I spent forty long and weary hours together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in Committee upstairs on the Sugar Bill. The conditions which are now coming to pass are fulfilling the worst forebodings that we expressed in Committee. We thought that this situation would arise because of the weird and wonderful mechanism involved in this accounting board which has been set up to stabilise the situation.
I should like the Minister to let us know what is happening in the world's market, especially in regard to Cuban sugar—never mind that of Mauritius, Barbados or Fiji. Why, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), did the Minister say that in his' view the price of sugar would go up by 1¾d. per lb.—which will possibly mean 2d. if and when it comes to pass? It will give us some of the dearest sugar in Western Europe. It will be dearer than the sugar of the Netherlands, or Belgium, and other Western European countries who subsidise their own sugar beet industries.
Although I am conversant with the Measure, I am not too sure about such mystical terms as "surcharge" and "drawback". The Bill, which was passed against our wishes in 1956, was an ideological monstrosity. It was forced upon us by the ideological prejudices of the Government. It was given birth to very hastily, although, during its passage through the House, we forced the Minister to put in some judicious and sensible Amendments. If we had not, the position would have been worse than it is.
I hasten to add that no one on this side of the House is antagonistic towards a Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We have a duty to fulfil to these overseas people, and although we shudder at the impost which is to be placed upon our wives when they go shopping we nevertheless agree that we should subsidise or underpin the sugar producers in these islands of the Empire—or, as we prefer to call it, the Commonwealth—and our overseas dependencies. Luckily the Colonies do not suffer, but if the Government had had their way and had not been held back in their purposes by the fact that they had to subsidise the sugar beet industry, we should have seen Commonwealth sugar producers ruined, as producers of copper, cocoa and palm oil have been, instead of being buttressed by bulk purchases in the years after the war, in the Attlee Governments of 1945–50, and 1951. It is vital, whether or not there be a Sugar Board, that the producers overseas should be helped. But we think that should be done in a much better way and we deplore these annual vacillations, ups-and-downs and ins-and-outs of prices.
We think it wrong that this sort of thing should go on. Very soon we on these benches will be the Government, and then we shall be able to do something about it instead of just talking in sorrowful terms as we are tonight. We are not even speaking in anger, because there is not much we can do about it now and there is not much point in being angry. But soon we shall occupy the benches opposite, and then we may be able to do something to remedy this state of affairs. The Government, while they are maintaining stability for the producer, are not playing the game by the consumers in this country. This is a crazy situation where the world price of

sugar is falling while we are expected to pay more. I hope the Minister will tell us the price of sugar in the world markets. I think we were paying about £42 a ton last year and it has fallen to £31, but I am not sure of the figures. I hope the Minister will tell us what is the position.
We have discussed the Sugar Board, which is an accounting agency. One could wish that it had more members with experience of the industry. If we had to have a Board we ought to have had a much more efficient one than the present Board. That is my opinion, after spending so long in the Standing Committee discussions on this subject less than two years ago. One does not wish to be a prophet of woe and say, "I told you so", but it is a sad thing that the consumer in this country is expected to pay more when we feel that he should not have to bear that burden. The amount of money needed to hold the price of sugar should come out of the annual tax. We should be subsidising this and have bulk purchase, and not expect the individual purchaser to pay 2d. a lb. more for sugar.
The present dilemma of the Government is that they wish to play the game by the overseas sugar producers, but their conduct towards the purchaser at home is most unsatisfactory. We hope that the Minister can tell us tonight why this sort of topsy-turvy and inexplicable situation prevails.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). We do indeed live in a crazy world where the world price of sugar is falling but the price to the consumer in this country is going up. We are not sure by how much it will be increased and I think the Parliamentary Secretary was remiss in not answering my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who asked whether the price was going up. That information would have helped us in our discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to say something now.

Mr. Godber: I wish to put this matter in the right perspective, and I think it will be more helpful if I say everything in one speech.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman sounds like "Father Christmas"—as though there were a great crowd waiting for him. But all we want to know is whether our understanding of what was said by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today is right or wrong. Will the price go up or down? The hon. Gentleman need only say "Yes" or "No" but apparently he prefers to wait until the great oration which he is to deliver at any minute now. We want to know whether the price will go up in the shops.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is not the Minister being a little harsh to his colleagues on the benches behind him? If he came clean on this matter it would save the time of the House in debate, we should get to bed earlier, and his hon. Friends would feel much happier that he had shortened the debate in this way.

Mr. Mellish: It would be very difficult to make Government supporters really happy in these days. They have had to go one by one to interview their Chief Whip for being absent last night and we shall have the Kelvingrove result declared about midnight. That is enough to make them feel miserable.

Mr. Denis Howell: Would not my hon. Friends agree that the most depressing feature for the Government supporters is that they still have the present Foreign Secretary?

Mr. James Stuart: On a point of order. Are we not discussing sugar?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. Hon. Members should discuss sugar and not all these other things.

Mr. Mellish: If the right hon. Gentleman wants sugar, we shall soon get back to it. We were told that the increase in price would be very small, and the effect on the cost of living something about which we need not bother very much because it would not have much effect. We have often heard a similar argument from the Government when increases went on. We heard it in connection with the National Health Service Contributions Bill last week, when we were told that the increase was "only 6d.," that nobody would bother about

it, and anybody could pay 6d. It is, nevertheless, part of the inflationary spiral. We have yet to find a very good reason why we should put up the price of commodities like chocolates and sweets.
The ex-Secretary of State for Scotland said a moment ago that he wanted sugar. He is going to get it. On the Second Reading of the Sugar Bill, which created the corporation which is dealing with this matter—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be out of order in a moment. He cannot discuss the Act.

Mr. Mellish: I was about to refer to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 10th November, 1955, when the Sugar Bill was having its Second Reading. My hon. Friend said:
The price is determined by the Commonwealth Agreement. As he has explained, it is prohibited from handling the sugar unless the right hon. Gentleman so directs.
My hon. Friend went on to say:
As the right hon. Gentleman explained, it makes no difference to the internal market. As the White Paper says:
'The internal market for sugar in the United Kingdom forms a unified price system.'…
and so it will remain if this Bill becomes an Act. That is why the right hon. Gentleman has had to seek price control powers under Clause 27. But, to avoid the subsidy, we have to have very complex and complicated administrative arrangements to make sure that we take back from the traders and refiners the difference of price between the price at which they sold the sugar, the world price determined under the Clause to which I have referred, and the Commonwealth price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2035.]
All this complicated structure brought in by the Measure which my party opposed and voted against on Second Reading has resulted in just the sort of situation envisaged by my hon. Friend. I am glad that the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland is still present because—

Mr. Godber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Last year, when we discussed a similar order, I had one or two good quotations I wanted to make from speeches of hon. Members opposite but I was ruled out of order, although the Order was similar to the one we are now discussing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule is quite simple. We are dealing only with the Orders before us and to go back on to the history of the Act is going too far.

Mr. Mellish: I will, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we are praying against certain machinery which was brought into existence by this Government and against which we protested at the time. Some of the predictions made by my hon. Friends at that time are now being realised. I will quote a final statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley):
We believe the Bill strengthens the position of the merchant without any advantage to the consumer. Indeed, the consumer will be worse off. This is a further step by the Government towards restoring liberty of action to the merchants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2086.]
My right hon. Friend went on to condemn that Bill. All those predictions of my hon. Friends have now come to pass. We do not know for certain how much this will cost, but I should have thought that at least one hon. Member opposite would have questioned his party. I suppose the chastening hon. Members opposite have had from the Chief Whip has put a damper on them, but now so many hon. Members opposite are no longer members of that party and they have full licence to criticise the Front Government Bench. If the original proposals of the Labour Party for the nationalisation of sugar had been achieved we would not be in this position. Tate and Lyle's and all they stand for have to be sustained. That is an indication of how right we were and how wrong were the Government.

10.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): We have heard interesting comments from hon. Members opposite and I shall endeavour to deal with the points they have raised as briefly as I can. I thought the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was a little ungracious to his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) when he spoke of the way in which he spent "many weary hours" with him in Committee. I have been spending many happy hours in Committee with the hon. Member recently. I

think that is a much kinder way of putting it.

Mr. J. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that because of the physical juxtaposition of seats in the Standing Committee upstairs I was facing the Government benches all the time.

Mr. Godber: I thought it was his hon. Friend whom the hon. Member was unhappy about. I shall not carry that further because I have no wish to embarrass hon. Members in any way.
I shall seek to deal with the interesting points put forward and shall certainly deal with the point raised in relation to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, but as I said in my intervention I should like to do that in the proper place in my speech. It is an important matter and should be put in its proper perspective.
The Order we are discussing is one of five rather complicated Orders which have to be considered together, but separate Orders are necessary as the exercise of what are in law quite separately delegated powers in a single instrument. I am advised would be open to legal objections. That is why we have this bunch of Orders before us.
The effect of the Orders taken collectively is that they bring to an end the distribution payment of ½d. per lb. which has been in force since 15th July last year and they introduce a surcharge equivalent to 1¼d. per lb. That is the point that my right hon. Friend was seeking to make this afternoon in reply to a Question, when he said that the maximum effect would be 1¾d. He did not say that there would be a further rise of 1¾d. He said that the maximum effect would be 1¾d. That is the way in which the situation must be seen in relation to the effect of the Orders.
It is also true that, during the preceding months, sugar had been at an artificially low price because the distribution payment was in force. While, therefore, the price may have been raised since the Orders came into effect, it was, in fact, below the price that it must have been otherwise before that period. Therefore, although the housewives are having to pay a little more now, they were gaining at that time.
I have been looking at prices and I notice that last year, when we discussed


this matter, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North was critical about the price that the housewife was then paying and he compared it with the price when the Labour Government were in office. During recent months, in fact, the price has been little higher than it was in 1951—the price for which the hon. Member last year took credit—in spite of the considerable increase in the cost of all trading transactions since 1951. One can, therefore, say that the position is much better now than it was this time twelve months ago.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman appears to be on a point of some importance—the question of how far the Government and the Sugar Board dictate policy. I conceded that there had been price reductions during the last twelve months. Now, however, the price is running up again and shortly it will be above what it was twelve months ago. These, surely, are matters of policy when we are trying to avoid increased costs of living. Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he is sorry but he cannot do anything about this and that the Sugar Board, when it pleases, against the market, can hold prices; and that now, at this critical moment, when the Prime Minister declares that he is desperately trying to hold prices stable, the Sugar Board upsets the apple cart by saying that it is putting up the price now because it made a mistake over the past twelve months? This upsets the present delicate equilibrium.

Mr. Godber: I propose to deal with the reasons why this has happened in this way, but I wanted first to bring the matter down to reality in relation to present prices. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North has just said that the price is going up and is likely to reach the levels of a year ago. There is no likelihood of that whatever. The prices of a year ago were considerably higher.

Mr. Willey: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the prices given in the Grocer this week of 8½d. to 9d.?

Mr. Godber: The prices that the hon. Member is now quoting, of course, include the increases which already have taken effect with the surcharge reimposition. Certainly, no additional increase in price is anticipated, although as the

stocks work out some of the prices quoted are, presumably, those of new stock. Plenty of sugar is, however, being bought, I would say, below the price quoted by the hon. Member as stocks are being worked out. I imagine that the price quoted by the hon. Member is the peak price—

Mr. J. Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godber: I have given way on several occasions.

Mr. Johnson: This is important. Forgetting all the technical terms in the Orders, will the hon. Gentleman explain in simple language, so that the housewife can understand, why at this moment, when the price of sugar in world markets is falling, we are faced, in the hon. Gentleman's own words, with a possible 1¾d. per lb. increase in the price?

Mr. Godber: It is not an increase of 1¾d. per lb. over the prices that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has just quoted. I am saying that it is a possible 1¾d. increase over the price operating before the surcharge was imposed.

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Johnson rose—

Mr. Godber: I should be glad if the hon. Member would be patient for a moment, because I want to put the matter in proper perspective.
The policy about which I have been talking, and of which these Orders are an instance, is embodied in the Sugar Act. Briefly, the objects were to bring to an end State trading in sugar and to give the sugar and sugar-using trades the greatest possible freedom compatible with the discharge of the Government's obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the agricultural guarantees. That, of course, is where we part company with the hon. Member for Rugby.
That policy has now been in force for about fifteen months and has, as I hope to show, proved both practical and beneficial over the whole field. The arrangements set up under the Act are certainly practical because the Sugar Board has from the outset successfully carried out, in a manner which has earned the cooperation and respect of the sugar trade, the considerable task of buying about 1½ million tons of Commonwealth sugar each year at the negotiated price and selling it at the world market price. This


is the means by which the price guarantees to Commonwealth producers are implemented, and the profit or loss on these and corresponding transactions on home-produced sugar is the major factor in determining whether there shall be a surcharge or a distribution payment, and at what rate, since the Board must balance its accounts taking one year with another.
I was asked a number of questions about the Board's accounts. I should point out that, in fact, owing to the exceptional conditions of the first year of operation of the Board, my right hon. Friend made an Order on 24th July last year in accordance with Section 35 (3) of the Sugar Act which extended the term of the Board's first financial year to 30th June, 1958. The Board's first Report and Audited Accounts will accordingly be presented as soon as possible after that date, but I am not yet in the position to give the precise date. That deals with the point about the publication of accounts.
Although the first of the Board's operations coincided with quite exceptional movements in the world market price, from well below the guaranteed price to well above it and back again, this has not prevented the smooth movement of supplies, and the necessary moves from surcharge to distribution payment and back again have been made in good order. Arrangements made under the Act have thus proved capable, although exceptionally difficult trading conditions were encountered at the outset, of achieving their main purpose of allowing the sugar market to function freely whilst fulfilling the price guarantees to home and Commonwealth sugar producers.
The Government's policy has also proved right from the point of view of the consumer, the trade, and the Government and the economy generally. The freeing of the sugar market has undoubtedly benefited the consumer. Consumption increased slightly in 1957 to about 2,620,000 tons, and supplies under free trading have amply covered steadily rising consumption and changes in stock levels, despite the temporary and exceptional shortage of world supplies in the first half of 1957.
Of course, it was those shortages in world supplies which really caused the undoubted difficulties last year, not only

in this country but throughout the world, in relation to sugar, and caused us to go from surcharge to distribution payment, which was something that had not been envisaged by anyone as being the least likely at the time the Sugar Act was passed. It was an acute shortage and it was due not so much, I think, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said this evening, to increased consumption, but due, as I said on the last Prayer we had on the subject, to world climatic conditions. I said we had had difficulty with the sugar crop in Europe and Cuba, and the crop generally had been affected by drought. Those were the real reasons for the shortage.
Turning from supplies to prices, the consumer is still, despite inflation, despite an increase in the guaranteed price of both home-produced and Commonwealth sugar, and after making full allowance for the effect of the amount of the recent surcharge, paying no more, indeed rather less, for sugar than before the present Act came into operation on 1st January, 1957.
The last retail price quoted by the Grocer on 8th March, 1958, was from 1s. 3½d. to 1s. 5½d. per 2 lb. packet granulated, as against a firm quotation of 1s. 5½d. at the end of 1956. So that the price is marginally lower at present. It is true that the retail price rose above 1s. 5½d. in 1957. That was for the special reasons which I have explained. World prices have now fallen back to about their earlier level.
I was asked particularly about the level of world prices. The free world price at the present time, I am told, is about £30 15s. a ton c.i.f. London, or, to quote it in the manner in which it is normally quoted, 3.40 cents per lb. f.a.s. Cuba. The Commonwealth price about which I was asked is somewhat higher than that. The present price is £43 16s. 8d. a ton which is an increase over last year of about 33s. 4d. As I say, world prices have fallen back to the levels at which they stood steadily for three or four years up till last year.
The present arrangements ensure that, because the domestic price reflects the world price, plus or minus the surcharge or distribution payment, which broadly represents the difference between the market price and the guaranteed prices,


the consumer pays on average over a period the true cost of the sugar consumed, Undoubtedly there is a delayed effect in the operation of the Sugar Act, and that is a point that is worrying hon. Members opposite, in that it takes time to change from one to another, from surcharge to distribution payment and back again; but in fact, the housewife gets the benefit, either before or after. At present she will have to pay more because she was getting it at an artificially cheaper price previously. That is one of the difficulties in the present situation particularly when a change has to be made from the distribution payment to surcharge.
I mentioned a few moments ago that when we first passed this Act it was not thought that the distribution payment would be material at all.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the price will be going up by 1¼d or perhaps 1½d, or even 1¾d. a lb.? Is he saying that, within a few months, we shall be over the hump and we may be paying 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d.? Is that the argument?

Mr. Godber: I am not going to commit myself to future prices because they depend entirely on world prices. All I am saying is that where the Sugar Board has to operate in this way it has to take account of the world price. It is buying Commonwealth and home-produced sugar. It is averaging those prices out because it has got to pay the subsidy to the Commonwealth and home producers and it has to put that charge on top of the world price in order to arrive at the price which the housewife pays. It is a complicated system, but that is how it works out. It is related directly to the world price.

Mr. Mellish: I never realised when I put a spoonful of sugar into a cup of tea how much complication was involved in arriving at the price.

Mr. Godber: I hope the hon. Member gets added sweetness from it, now that he knows the explanation. I admit that these arrangements are complicated, but I am trying to explain them to the House.
These arrangements have achieved the other objectives in the White Paper on Future Arrangements for the Marketing

of Sugar and embodied in the Sugar Act. Because the consumer pays on average the true cost of the sugar consumed, no burden of subsidy falls on the Exchequer. Neither can the Exchequer make a profit out of the consumer via State trading. The sugar and sugar-using industries have been given the maximum freedom compatible with the Government's guarantee obligations, and useful hedging facilities of the London terminal market have been re-established. We should not minimise that fact, because it has a useful effect and its attracts a certain amount of trade to this country.
From the dockside in the exporting countries and the sugar beet fields at home, to the retail grocery or confectionery shop, our sugar supplies are now handled by sugar experts—and that, I think, takes up the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, though, as he says, the Board is the accountant—

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to say something about the financial position of the Board? I ask, because I should like to know that, if it is the accountant, its steps are purely accountancy steps. As I have said, there is some suspicion that there may have been political motives in holding the price too long, and so on. Will he assure us that the Board was in a position, financially, to continue the distribution payment for the length of time it did?

Mr. Godber: It was done on financial grounds. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it certainly was not on political grounds. It is purely an accountancy matter.
In addition, there is the consideration that the Board has to pay tax on any profits, and so would, naturally, not wish to show a profit. If it did, then, clearly, the housewife would suffer from the tax paid on the profit. It is rather an odd situation, I agree, but that is the ruling. For that reason the Board has particularly not wished to show a profit. I cannot give figures for the Board's accounts, but when they are published the hon. Gentleman will, obviously, have the opportunity of seeing them. The Board dealt with that matter solely on that basis.
The sugar is in the hands of experts, who understand their subject and who are exercising commercial judgment, and


that, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, is certainly better than having a Government Department trading in sugar. A Government Department, or its political heads, might have an eye on politics in taking their decisions. There can be no doubt which is the more efficient of these two methods of getting our sugar, particularly where, as in this case, there are effective safeguards against excessive profits. The Sugar Board takes, and passes to the consumer, any margin between the world price and the guaranteed prices, which cover between 85 and 90 per cent. of our supplies.
The margin allowed to refiners to cover the cost of conversion from raw to refined sugar is controlled, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North well knows, by an undertaking given by Tate & Lyle to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1956, and the results of the operation of the undertaking are verified by a professional firm of accountants and auditors. Periodic reviews of the operation will be made, to ensure that that undertaking has not ceased to be satisfactory to the Government, or has proved onerous to the refiners. There is no indication, so far, that the undertaking has failed to protect the consumer, or has been unduly generous to refiners. The margin for the distribution from refinery to the retail sale is limited by competition, and there are no signs that the housewife, or the commercial user, is being overcharged.
For these reasons, I must ask the House to resist these Prayers, because, obviously, if the Orders were not passed it would make chaos of the whole operation of this somewhat elaborate arrangement. I have tried to explain its elaborateness to hon. Members. It is one of the most complicated things with which, I think, any of us have had to deal, but it is functioning—and it is functioning well. It has, as I have said, a somewhat delayed effect, but it does ensure that the housewife gets the sugar at the price it costs to produce, having in mind that we are not paying a subsidy through the taxpayer; and that the housewife herself is paying the full cost of the sugar.
She is paying, and she has to pay for it in one way if not in another—either she or her husband. The hon. Member for Rugby said that it was, of course,

very right and proper that we should support the Commonwealth in this field. If we are to do that, the sugar has to be paid for in some way, and we think that this averaging of prices is the best and most effective way of doing that—

Mr. J. Johnson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that Income Tax is the fairest, by any yardstick, of all forms of taxation? Is it not fairer to have Income Tax providing the bulk of the moneys to support the nation, so to speak, rather than to take the money from the housewife, who may have to look after a large family on a low income? Is not public taxation of that kind better?

Mr. Godber: If we were to enter into a dissertation on the relative merits or demerits of Income Tax, we should be here for a very long time. I do not accept that it is unreasonable that the payments should be made in this way. I have pointed out that, after all, the present price is very little different from what it was before the Sugar Act came into force. It seems to have been done efficiently, effectively and economically. Indeed, I was not aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite were now in favour of general consumer food subsidies, after the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on television a little while ago. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Rugby should take that point.
I have tried to explain the particular position in relation to these Orders and I hope that, with the information I have given, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North may feel inclined to withdraw his Prayer.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: One thing is crystal-clear from the speech we have heard and from the mass of complexities of this matter, and that is the housewives of the country are to pay more for their sugar.

Mr. Godber: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive my interruption, I feel that I must reject that at once.

Mr. Mellish: Why did not the hon. Gentleman reject it earlier?

Mr. Godber: I tried to explain it at an earlier stage, and I said that, in fact, the maximum effect which may happen is the 1¾d., but that is not an increase on


today's price; that was an increase on the price which was quoted before the surcharge came into being. It has already come into effect, and it is quite wrong now to mislead the housewife by saying that the price will increase.

Mr. Willey: May I mention by way of an aside that there are concerns which have not yet increased their price of sugar? They have held the price. Those concerns are going to increase their price by 1¾d.

Mr. Godber: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman himself quoted a current price of 8d. per pound, and I was concerned that a report did not go out from the House that there was an intention to have an additional increase over that.

Mr. Howell: I return to the point I made, which is a very substantial one, that many housewives will now have to pay more for their sugar, and those who are not now to be asked to pay an increased price are, in fact, already paying more than the world price of sugar justifies today. In other words, the housewives are at the wrong end of the stick, whatever happens.
The Minister told us—taking a good deal of time about it—that the housewife ought to be jolly pleased that she has to pay only 1¾d. extra because, for a long time, she has had the benefit of ½d distribution payment. This is "Alice in Wonderland" economics and political dialectic. One can imagine what would have happened in the halcyon days of the Housewives' League, if a Labour Government had propounded such theories. Those of us who were connected with politics in those days remember the ¼d. on bacon which was enough to induce thousands of fur-coated housewives to come to the Lobbies of the House and complain about the failure of the Government to hold the cost of living stable.
This touches on the fundamental plea we have had from the Government and from the Prime Minister, about holding the cost of living steady. We are entitled to ask the Minister and the Government how the effect of what they are putting to the House tonight comes into line with the Prime Minister's famous plateau, for instance. What about his further injunction to industrialists that, where world commodity prices are fall-

ing, the fall should be allowed to pass through to the consumer? Here is a first-class example of an occasion when the Government themselves are in a position to regulate the price of sugar to the housewife, at a time when commodity prices are falling, yet they are completely unable to do so.

Mr. Godber: Let us get this straight. The price the housewife is paying today and will be paying tomorrow is lower than that which she was paying this time last year. That is very relevant.

Mr. Howell: That is a very relevant factor in the argument I am making, which is that in the island economy of this nation, based as it is on importing large amounts of raw materials and foodstuffs, when the world prices of those raw materials and foodstuffs are substantially falling, the value of the fall is not being passed on to the consumers in this country. I think that that is a perfectly valid point to make.
What the hon. Gentleman has just said may be true, that the price is fractionally lower—"fractionally" was the word which, I think, he used in his original reply—today than last year; but he cannot escape from the main fact, that if it were related to the actual price in the world, in the way the Prime Minister has persistently asked manufacturers and traders in this country to relate their prices to world prices, the housewife would be getting the advantages of a stabilised economy and paying far less than she has been so far.
I certainly think we are entitled to express our disgust at the position at this time, when the trade union movement is being asked to refrain from seeking wage increases, when we have the Cohen Committee set up and propounding the theory that even where production is increased wages ought not to follow suit, and even that there might be a need for an even greater degree of unemployment than we have at the moment, and when there is this organised and co-ordinated attack on the organised workers of this country. Sugar is one of our basic food commodities, which affects so many things, confectionery and other foodstuffs. It is a very serious matter indeed and one about which we ought to protest most vigorously.
Of course, there is another side to the question, and it was set out by my hon.


Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), and we subscribe to it. That is the need to bulk buy sugar to preserve the economy of the Commonwealth. It may be thought by some hon. Members opposite that we on this side are in a dilemma because we are arguing, on the one hand, that the housewife should get the benefit of a drop in the world price of sugar, and, on the other, that the Commonwealth should be sustained against these fluctuations in prices. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) thinks this is a contradiction. It is a contradiction in the terms of capitalist economies; it is a contradiction in the terms of the economics of the Conservative Party. It is thought we cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me which market dominates the world price?

Mr. Howell: The Cuban market, of course.
Our argument is for the bulk purchase of sugar. The hon. Member leads me on—

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is now traversing the provisions of the Act, which are not in issue on these Prayers—the provisions of an Act of Parliament to which the House has agreed.

Mr. Howell: I was only following the line the Minister himself followed, Mr. Speaker, and if he was out of order I suppose I am out of order. Without wishing to go out of order, I would say that the lack of a bulk purchase policy in the West Indies is having serious social consequences and the hon. Member ought to realise the seriousness of the position. It is because the West Indian producers have no confidence in the Sugar Board and the Orders that we are debating that thousands and thousands of West Indians are coming into this country and creating other social anomalies.
To follow up that argument would he out of order.

Mr. H. Fraser: A stupid argument.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) says that it is a stupid argument, but it is not. If he represented a city such as Birmingham, which has to take thousands and

thousands of these immigrants, he would not call it a stupid argument.

Mr. Speaker: This argument is wide of the Orders.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am allowing the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone to lead me on. I shall leave that matter there.
It is extremely important to make the point that the way to deal with this problem is by way of bulk purchases and guaranteed prices, and the complete nationalisation of the industry. The Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that these slender Orders will support the weight of the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Howell: I was about to draw your attention to the Minister's comment about the function of Tate and Lyle in the sugar industry, Mr. Speaker. He made that comment while you were in the Chair. This is a political matter. The difference between us is that the, Conservative Party has taken political action in this matter at the behest of Mr. Cube, of Tate and Lyle, with grave economic consequences to the domestic consumer, whereas we say that this private monopoly of Tate and Lyle should be taken over completely by the State. We can then have the best of both worlds.

Mr. Speaker: That issue is not before us. The hon. Member must not persist in arguing it.

Mr. Howell: I submit that it is a very important and material factor in the question why the British housewife is being asked to pay 1¾d. more than she need for her sugar today.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I apologise to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, for arriving late in this debate. I shall curtail my remarks on the question, although there are five Orders, which could lead to an elaboration of arguments on the subject. I have listened with great interest to the views of the Parliamentary Secretary and to the wistful way in which he said that this matter is in the hands of the experts. How pleased he must be that it is in the hands of the experts, because nothing but chaos—and that was a favourite word of his—could arise from the explanation that he attempted to give


of the reason for the increase of 1¾d. a lb. in the price of sugar.
I took part in the original debates and discussions on the Sugar Bill two years ago. I happened to come across a newspaper extract a few days ago referring to a pledge given by the hon. Member's predecessor that the sugar barons would not put up the price. That was the pledge given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 27th November, 1956, in the Third Reading debate. It appears that since then there have been changes in the Ministry; changes in policy, and changes in the arguments presented to the House and the country about the effect of the Measure.
The attempted explanation by the Parliamentary Secretary did nothing to satisfy us on that score. If the hon. Member will refer to the Second Reading debate he will see that a similar pledge was then given, in quite definite terms, on 10th November. 1955. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary then said:
It is rather important not to have a wrong impression on this point. Nothing in the Bill or in the surcharge will increase the cost to the consumer.
He went on:
We should not get the idea that this surcharge will increase the price of sugar to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2060.]
What we are debating, and what hon. Members on these benches object to, is the action of the new Parliamentary Secretary and the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which will result in an increase in the price of sugar by 1¾d. per lb.
It is true that the information was dragged out of the Minister at Question Time today by me. The right hon. Gentleman was reluctant to give that information and I had to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow him to give that information to the House; because for reasons best known to himself he was attempting to conceal it or hold it back so that we could not make use of it in this debate.
Despite the protestations of the Parliamentary Secretary, there is not the slightest doubt that the 1¾d. is to be borne by the ordinary consumer. We protest against that, not only because it will be an added burden to the housewife, but because it shows again that the pledges

of this Government can be broken. While they can change their Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers, they do not change their habit of breaking promises. The promise given to the consumers when the Act was introduced just over two years ago has been broken. The attempt by the Parliamentary Secretary to dress up this broken promise in many obscure words will not carry much weight at the ensuing by-elections.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Godber: If I may, by the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the wholly unwarranted attack on my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger). My right hon. Friend had no intention of misleading the House or withholding information. He thought it was out of order to give information which would be given later in the day in debate. That was the sole reason why he did not give it then, and I am deeply distressed at the imputations of the hon. Member.

Mr. G. Jeger: Has not the hon. Member seen the text of the Question on the Order Paper:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will make a statement on the proposed increase in the price of sugar.
The right hon. Gentleman made a statement in obscure language without referring in terms to the increase and refused to give the figures until he was pressed to do so. If that was not deliberate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this debate on what is normally a sweet subject will not be soured by these acerbities.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry, but I must protest against what the hon. Gentleman has said. I repeat my protest because in fact the Question he has just quoted was on a proposed increase, whereas the increase had already taken place. There is no further proposed increase. The hon. Member has again said that the housewife will have to pay an additional increase of 1¾d. I dealt with that at considerable length earlier on. I hope the hon. Member does not wish deliberately to misrepresent what I said, but certainly his speech has given me that impression. The price has not risen. In fact the price today is almost identical and, if anything, cheaper than when the pledge was given. So I say that the hon. Member is entirely wrong.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I have tried to bring a little sweetness into the debate, but I regret that I cannot accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. The hon. Gentleman concluded his first speech with an appeal to me. He came to a rather amazing assumption, that if there was a Division, it was an odds-on chance that we should win. He thought that we should succeed and he said that if we did, we should get chaos out of chaos. Perhaps we prefer the chaos that we have, rather than that which we do not know.
I would agree that we are in some difficulties here. The Sugar Board has to decide these things. I was disturbed by the hon. Gentleman's reference to Cuban prices, because it looks as if they are lifting again, and that is just what we would expect if the Sugar Board had taken this action. We have had a debate which will be helpful, and an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of some of the points we raised. In the circumstances we should allow the Sugar Board to proceed with the steps it intends to take. We in the House have taken the steps that we also should properly take: we have publicly called attention to the action which the Board has taken, and expressed our views.
On those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROBATION SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I wish to raise the question of the probation officers' service. We have heard from the Leader of the House this afternoon that the subject is to be discussed again next Monday, and therefore it may well be that our debate tonight is something of a curtain raiser. The matter arose in the first instance when the Home Secretary decided, in his wisdom or otherwise, to reduce the suggested increase in the salaries of chief probation officers. I raised the matter at Question Time and did not receive the satisfactory reply for which I had hoped, so I give notice that I would raise it again on the Adjournment.
I am much concerned about that aspect, although I shall not concentrate on it tonight, but to treat the chief probation officers in that way, for a saving of £4,500, I regard as quite mean, though I appreciate fully that it was only the Home Office's contribution to the present economic ideas that are going around, and this was the sacrifice that seemed to be involved for chief probation officers.
I know that the officers themselves and representatives from the Joint Negotiating Committee have already seen the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore the matter is to some extent sub judice. I am only expressing the hope that the Home Secretary might be able to change his mind. While I may make some comments applicable to salaries, that is all I want to say at present about the reduction in the proposed increase.
If I may come to the service in general, which is causing great concern because of the shortage of probation officers and the difficulties of recruitment, what I have to say is not inspired by the probation officers themselves but by my experience with the Magistrates' Association. We have discussed this matter in committee, in council and in annual general meetings, and as a result the Association asked its branches throughout the country to give some kind of report of what was taking place. The replies have shown terrible conditions of shortage, particularly in the industrial areas. I represent part of the City of Salford, and the probation officer problem there cannot be described. Obviously, the need for probation officers in such areas is very great, and there is the greatest possible difficulty in recruitment. Only this morning I heard from the County of Nottingham that the same circumstances prevail there.
Part-time officers exist, but many of them receive no training. My first suggestion is that a good-neighbour system should be brought into operation whereby part-time officers would come into contact with trained and experienced probation officers to get some idea of the work, and assistance in their duties. That would be of great value.
Home Office figures show that five men and five women completed their course of training in 1957, that 31 men and 32 women will complete their courses in 1958, and 16 men and 14 women in 1959,


making a total for the three years of 52 men and 51 women. In the previous three years, the wastage was 69 men and 84 women. If the wastage is equal in the next three years, the figures will not catch up. The number being trained is therefore inadequate.
It is not solely a question of salary. I do not believe that anybody enters the service purely for the salary; it is a great vocation which calls for the best persons imaginable. Nevertheless, very different salaries must be paid in future to attract to the service the people we desire to see there. The present salary of the ordinary probation officer is from £480 to £790 and of the senior probation officer from £865 to £1,030. The chief probation officer in an area with a population of 2½ million people is limited on his maximum to £1,565 per annum. It is inadequate.
I want to make certain requests. The first is that the Home Secretary should encourage the Joint Negotiating Committee to start upon an entirely new basis and upon quite different salary terms. The Committee, which knows the problem better than anyone, should have more direct representation on the Joint Negotiating Council. My second request is that a departmental committee of inquiry be set up. There has not been one since 1936 on this subject, although since 1936 there has been more matrimonial conciliation and after-care work.
The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, has been passed and has added to the burdens of probation officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) has introduced a First Offenders Bill that would throw more burdens on them. We shall have an Adoption Bill shortly from the other place. The Wolfenden Report will probably call for legislation, while the Home Secretary's own policy, as explained to us in his Glasgow speech, proved the need for still more probation officers.
My third request is that, in the national interest, there should be published a national report of the probation service instead of our having to rely on the individual reports of probation committees. Fourthly, I would ask that probation officers should be made into established officers as we understand that term in the Civil Service.
I have tried to get into a short space of time as much as I can. There will be other opportunities, I know, next week to talk of this subject, but I want to impress on the Under-Secretary what a tremendous problem exists. I hope that we can be assured that the Home Secretary and the Home Office have the matter fully in mind and that the sort of action which might be taken can be indicated.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the plea which has been so eloquently expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) on behalf of the probation service which, as I see it, has three great merits. It leaves the delinquent in his ordinary environment so that he can be helped towards conformity with a proper life where the ordinary pattern of society has to be applied. It is cheaper than institutional treatment and, thirdly, the service has proved to be amply justified by the results. That is shown by the relatively small number of offenders placed in its care who subsequently get into trouble.
The service has changed tremendously in the past twenty years. For example, in 1936 it consisted of 380 officers only, which number included but a handful of university-trained people. Today, there are more than 1,300, many of whom have had university training, and about 60,000 people come under their supervision each year. About half of that number are adults and some are by no means first offenders. As the hon. Gentleman for Salford, West has said, additional duties are thrown on these officers by way of after-care of ex-prisoners and Borstal cases, and the work in connection with matrimonial reconciliation. The average "case load" of an officer is about sixty for the males, and forty for the females, and they work under considerable pressure, as the Home Secretary recognises.
As we have heard, there is a shortage of staff. Pay is important, and it has improved since the years before the war, but the maximum pay for the basic probation officer is now only £860 a year. We must remember that he, or she, works long and irregular hours, often in the evening and at week-ends, with no


overtime or extra allowances. We know that the Home Secretary appreciates the difficulties in the way of recruiting and has expressed the hope that, in a year or two, the service will be better equipped to meet the demands by a progressive policy of criminal law reform.
I cannot see the recruits coming forward in the numbers hoped for under present circumstances and I hope, therefore, that the service can be made a little more financially attractive and that something more than has been done will be done to sell the service to the public in the context that it is a modern social service as important, in its way, as the Health Service.
In this connection, I would beg the Under-Secretary to bear in mind three factors. First, that the present trends in the sentencing policy of the courts make it appear that more and more demands are likely to be made on the service; secondly, existing officers cannot lighten their case loads without reducing the quality of their work, and, thirdly, a good probation officer cannot be produced overnight. Therefore, can the probation service be given the chance to show that it can pay for itself many times over, which it can, by keeping many persons out of prison where they are so expensive to maintain?

11.20 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I should like, first of all, to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) about the value of the probation service and the wonderful work which is done by those in it. It is a fact that it has for some years been a service which is expanding in scope, and for reasons which have been mentioned it is likely to expand still further in the future.
Therefore, it is important, and my right hon. Friend is deeply aware of the fact, that we should maintain recruitment. As I shall hope to show, the position is not quite so unpromising as the hon. Member for Salford, West appeared to indicate by the figures he gave. We shall, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, be discussing this matter further on Monday next, and between now and then I want to examine his figures. Meanwhile, I would ask him

to bear in mind the figures which I am about to give him.
The present strength of the service is altogether just about 1,300 for the whole of England and Wales. The deficiency is between 70 and 80 vacancies. There are about 110 people under training under the Home Office scheme at the moment, of whom about 70 should be ready for appointment later this year. That number of people now under training should, broadly speaking, solve the worst part of the problem, but I agree that it does exist.
I will now deal with the question of pay. The hon. Member for Salford, West used the somewhat ambiguous phrase that my right hon. Friend had decided to reduce the increase in pay.

Mr. Royle: Proposed increase.

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman says that he used the phrase "proposed increase," I accept that.
The increase proposed was 10 per cent. and the increase decided upon by my right hon. Friend was 8·2 per cent., and at a time when the Government are endeavouring to stabilise the cost of living and to protect the national finances an increase of 8·2 per cent. cannot, I think, properly be described as mean, which was the word used by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to say that my right hon. Friend's recent decision not to implement fully, for the time being, the recommendation of the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service that the pay of officers in the supervisory grades should be increased by, approximately, 10 per cent. has already been fully explained by my right hon. Friend. He took the decision reluctantly, in the light of the present financial and economic circumstances and in line with the general Government policy on these matters.
My right hon. Friend expressed his willingness, however, at a more appropriate time to consider adjustments of the kind recommended, which involve changes in the differentials between the supervisory and basic grades of the service. I was present yesterday when my right hon. Friend received a deputation from the Joint Negotiating Committee, the members of which explained to him the considerations which had led them to recommend increases of about 10 per cent. and urged him to reconsider his decision to limit increases to 8·2 per cent. My right hon. Friend assured them that


he well understood their disappointment that their carefully considered recommendation had not been fully implemented and renewed his promise to review his decision as soon as the economic climate had responded to the Government's financial policy.
He thought that it was a misfortune that the probation service had happened to bear the early brunt of that policy. He said so candidly. He promised to examine in particular the deputation's suggestion that a recent offer made by the Postmaster-General to Post Office engineers afforded a precedent for authorising now the full increase recommended by the J.N.C. My right hon. Friend has looked into this, and has satisfied himself that there is not a true analogy between the two cases, and he will shortly be writing to the Joint Negotiating Committee about it. He therefore regrets that his decision must stand until a change in the economic situation justifies his reviewing it.
The hon. Member for Salford, West made several constructive suggestions and in such time as is available I should like to deal with them. He mentioned the question of untrained people being appointed, and he mentioned what he called his idea of a "good neighbour policy." I should like to look into that suggestion further. Meanwhile, I would tell him that the Home Office arranges short courses of training for all officers who have not had any training before entering the service, and those courses can be provided at a time convenient to the employing Committee.
The hon. Member suggested that a time had come for another Departmental committee of inquiry into the matter. I must remind him that recruitment for training receives the special attention of the Probation Advisory and Training Board, which is composed of magistrates, justices' clerks, and representatives of the universities and of the probation service, and is as well qualified and equipped to deal with this question as any Departmental committee could be.
The hon. Member suggested also that there should be an annual report prepared on the probation service. I would remind him that although my right hon. Friend is responsible to this House for the probation service, it is immediately

administered by no fewer than 116 probation authorities, most of whom issue their own annual reports, and it is at least doubtful whether there is room for an annual report by the Home Office on this particular service. In spite of the doubt about duplicating the matter, there is something to be said for collating and taking a more general view, and my hon. Friend therefore agrees that a periodic report on the work of the service as a whole would be valuable, and he hopes to publish one later on. I feel that in view of the fact that this debate is to be held on Monday it would not be useful for me to go into great detail in answering the various points—

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in cautioning the House against anticipating the debate which will take place on Monday.

Mr. Renton: It is in view of the debate and not with any intention of shirking responsibility for answering the question that I feel that perhaps I should leave the matter at the position that we have now reached, because candidly, although the hon. Gentleman gave me warning of some of the matters—and these are the matters with which I have dealt—I would prefer to have time to consider the other points which he raised and which may, no doubt, be raised again, to which I shall reply in greater detail if I can in the debate on Monday.
May I therefore conclude by saying that I think this has been a useful trial canter over the course, and I look forward to further discussion on this very important subject on Monday.

Mr. Hyde: Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is a discrepancy between the figures of shortage that he quoted—between 80 and 100—and those quoted by the Secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, according to whom the shortage is between 100 and 200?

Mr. Renton: I will certainly bear that in mind, and shall be glad to look into it further.

Mr. Royle: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say how he gets the figure of the real need? On what does he base it? He mentioned the figure of


another 700 filling the gaps—on what is that based?

Mr. Renton: I mentioned a figure of estimated shortage of between 70 and 80. I also mentioned that we have at present under training 110 people, of whom 70 will have completed their training later this year. There is, of course, the wastage factor to be borne in mind, but what I am saying is that when the present number of people have finished their training they will go a long way to filling the existing vacancies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North asked how these figures of deficiencies were calculated. We have to go by the information that the probation committees give us about the vacancies which they have, and which they would like us to help them fill from our training centre. The figures are based on that information.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.